Question: A university provided free housing for its male security guards but not for its female guards. The university claimed that its purpose was to ensure round-the-clock availability of public safety officers on the campus in case of emergencies, and therefore, the housing was for its benefit and convenience and not an added form of compensation to the male officers. University officials also claimed that it would be unduly expensive to try to make the facilities coed to accommodate the female guards. The female guards brought suit under the Equal Pay Act provisions of the FLSA. Who should win? See Stewart v. S.U.N.Y. Maritime College [2000 WL 1218379 (S.D.N.Y.)].