## Facts

- Partners National Health Plans hired Felicia Calloway, a Black female, in June 1987 as a marketing secretary at $14,996 annually after declining to raise the offer during negotiations.
- Calloway replaced a white employee hired nine months earlier at $16,000 annually.
- Partners employed only two Black individuals during part of the relevant period: Calloway and Ivory Steward.
- After Steward was fired in February 1988, Steward filed a timely EEOC charge alleging that similarly situated white employees and males were treated more favorably regarding wages and other employment terms.
- Calloway later sought positions with greater responsibility without success and resigned in November 1989.
- After Calloway’s resignation, Partners hired a white replacement at a salary higher than Calloway’s salary at resignation, despite the replacement’s lack of a college degree and lack of relevant industry experience.
- Calloway did not file her own EEOC charge; she sought to intervene in Steward’s Title VII action and relied on Steward’s EEOC charge as the administrative predicate.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Calloway proved her initial wage was discriminatory and found her claim similar to Steward’s, but dismissed the case as untimely by treating the discrimination as a single act occurring on the hire date.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII wage discrimination is a continuing violation such that each discriminatory paycheck is an actionable act for timeliness purposes, rather than a single act at initial salary-setting.
2. Whether a plaintiff who filed no EEOC charge may rely on a coworker’s timely EEOC charge under the single-filing (piggybacking) rule when the claims are sufficiently similar.
3. Whether an employer may bar Title VII relief using unclean hands based on an alleged misrepresentation about education, where the alleged misconduct is collateral to the wage-discrimination claim.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
- It held that discriminatory wage payments constitute a continuing violation; each paycheck reflecting the disparity is a separate Title VII violation, so the claim was not time-barred.
- It held Calloway could rely on Steward’s EEOC charge because the claims were sufficiently similar and involved overlapping periods and practices at the same employer.
- It rejected the unclean-hands defense because the alleged misrepresentation lacked a close relation to the wage-discrimination claim and the employer showed no injury tied to it.

## Legal Principles

- For Title VII wage claims, the relevant unlawful employment practice recurs with each paycheck that carries forward a discriminatory wage rate; timeliness may be satisfied by a discriminatory paycheck within the limitations period.
- Under the single-filing (piggybacking) rule, a plaintiff may proceed without filing an EEOC charge by relying on another employee’s timely charge when the claims arise from the same or very similar discriminatory practices and provide the employer adequate notice.
- Unclean hands requires a close nexus between the plaintiff’s alleged misconduct and the claim for relief, plus some demonstrated prejudice; collateral wrongdoing unrelated to the discrimination claim does not bar Title VII relief.

## Conclusion

The court held that ongoing payment of a discriminatory wage is actionable with each paycheck, permitted Calloway to proceed based on a coworker’s similar and timely EEOC charge, and refused to bar the claim on unclean-hands grounds absent a close connection and injury, requiring further proceedings on remand.


Calloway v. Partners Nat'l Health Plans, 986 F.2d 446 (11th Cir. 1993)