There have been numerous lawsuits within higher education brought by females over pay inequity and many articles have been written on the topic. Although not as prevalent, there have been some recent instances where male faculty have claimed--with some degree of success--that the process used by their institutions to make salary adjustments for females was unfair and led to reverse pay discrimination. In this paper, we examine some of the legal issues and statistical approaches surrounding claims of reverse sex discrimination in pay in the field of higher education. We begin by reviewing the way in which legal cases examine sex discrimination in pay in academe and the different approaches that institutions can take to remove pay disparities for women. We show that across-the-board salary adjustments for women are less likely than individualized salary adjustments to raise concerns about the salary determination process and possibly reverse discrimination, and lead to lower costs to the institution. These differences arise regardless of the salary model specification used by an institution when making salary adjustments. Finally, we use a model developed by the plaintiffs in a salary equity study at one institution to demonstrate the effects of using different adjustment methods on the total cost to the institution when making salary equity adjustments for both genders.