2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-17-2007 

# Ruehl v . V i a com Inc
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1463

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" R uehl v . V i a c om Inc " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 336. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/336* H onor abl e J ohn R

. Padova, D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 1 P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 1463

J AM E S H. RU E HL

v. V IA C O M , IN C ., s u c c e s s o r b ym e rg e r t o C B S C O R P O R A T IO N , f / k / a WES T I NGHOU S E E L E CT RI C C OR P OR AT I ON,

A p p e llan t.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 04- cv- 0075) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a A m brose

A r gued D ece m ber12, 2006

B efore: F U E N T E S and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PA D O V A , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: Sept ember7, 2007 )2 G l en D

. N ager( A r gued) L aw ren ce D

. R o sen b erg Jul i a C

. A m brose T h o m a s J . D a v is J ones D ay 5 1 L o u i s i a n a A v e n u e , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20001- 2113 A m yE

. D i as J ones D ay 3 1 st Flo o r, O n e M ell o n C tr
. 500 G r antSt r eet Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t orney s forD efe ndant

- A ppel l ant G aryF. L ynch ( A r gued) C ar l s on L ynch Lt d. 36 N

. J eff

er s on St r eet P. O

. B ox 7635 N ew C as t l e, PA 16107 C ol l een Ram age J ohns t on Ro th ma n Go r d o n , P

. C. 310 G r antSt r eet , 3d Fl oor Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t orney s forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee R obi n S. C onr ad Shane B r ennan N at i onal C hamberL i t i gat i on C ent er , I nc. 1 6 1 5 H S tr e e t , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20062 C ouns el forA m i cus C ur i ae, C hamberof C om m er ce of the U ni t ed St at es of A m er i caF or m ostof h i s car eer R ueh l w orked f or W est i ng ho use 1 El e c tr i c Co rp o r a t i o n ( “ W EC” )

. W EC wa s l a t e r p u r c h a s e d b yCBS C orpor at i on, w hi ch w as s ucce eded vi a mer gerbyV i acom, I nc. For eas e of r efe r ence , w e w il l ref ert o the def

endant

- appel l antas
“ V ia c o m .” T he r ecor d s uppor t s V i acom’ s as s ert i on thatthe meet i ng 2 w as on D ece m ber10, 1997, and R uehl does notdi s put e thatdat e. (S e e A p p . a t 1 2 4 , 4 2 9 .) 3 ____________ AM E NDE D OP I NI ON

____________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. T h is is a n interl o cu toryap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n ial o f V iac o m ’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . V iac o m se e k s to h a v e Ja m e s R u e h l’s c o m p lain t u n d e r th e A g e D isc rim in a tio n in E m p lo ym e n t A c t o f 1 9 6 7 (“ A D E A ” ), 2 9 U .S .C

. § 6 2 1 e t s e q ., di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o t i m el yexhaust ad m i ni s tr at i ve r emedi es b ef o re the E q u al E m pl oym entO pportuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”). T he D i s tr i ctC our t deni ed s um m ary j udgm entaft erconcl udi ng that R uehl ’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus t w as s aved byequi t abl e t ol l i ng or , i n the al t ernat i ve, excus ed by appl i cat i on of the “s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e. ” For th e re a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e d isa g re e w ith b o th ru lin g s . W e w ill r ever s e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ct C our t and r emand forentryof j u d g me n ti n f

a v o ro f Vi a c o m. I . Backg r ound R u e h l h a d w o rk e d f

o r V iac o m f

o r tw e n ty -f

o u r y e a rs, w h e n , in M ar c h 1 9 9 7 , h e was tr a n s f e rr e d f r o m h i s p o s i t i o n a s d i r e c t o rof acc ount i ng in the Ener gySy s t ems B us i nes s U ni tt o the t ax dep artm en t. I n “l at e 1997 orear l y1998, ” R uehl att ended a

1 m eet i ng atw hi ch hi s s upervi s or s i nform ed hi m thatthe t ax d e p a rtm e n t w a s b e in g e lim in a ted

. (A p p . at 2 9 1 .) A c c o rd in g to 2 R uehl , “[t ] heyj us ti nform ed me .

. . that I w as part of the tr ans i t i on te a m a n d th a t m yjo b w o u ld b e e lim in a te d o n A u g u s t 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 .”M o st c o u rts, o u rs in c lu d e d , h a v e n o t b e e n m e th o d ica l in 3 thei rus e of the t erm s “cl ass ac t i on” and “ col l ect i ve ac t i on. ” The res ulti s that num erous cases abo ut FL S A “coll ect i ve acti on s” use the R ule 23 t erm “cl ass act i on . ” H ere, w e w i l l qu ote cases thatuse the t erm s i nt er change abl y , and w e w i l l r ef er t o m ember s of a “c o ll ec ti v e a cti o n ” a s p art o f a “class,” b u t w e w il l i n d icate w h ere ou r anal y si s i s l i m i t ed to col l ect i ve acti on s. 4 ( I d. ) A ppr oxi m atel ys even mont hs l at er , on J ul y2, 1998, R uehl r ece i ved “[ o] ffi ci al not i fi cat i on” thathi s empl oym entw oul d be t erm i nat ed, and t hat hi s l as t day w oul d be A ugus t 31, 1998. ( A pp. at 30 1

. ) O n h is la st d a y , R u e h l sig n e d a “ S e p a ra tio n A g re e m e n t, G ener al R el eas e A nd Pr om i s e N ot t o Sue” ( the “Rel eas e”) , w hi ch i ncl uded a w ai verof the r i ghtt o s ue for age di s cr i m i nat i on under the A D E A

. R u eh l t esti fied that d u ri n g the s u m m er o f 1 9 9 8 , b ef o re he s i gned the R el eas e, he bega n t o s us pectthathi s ag e m ayhave pl a y e d a r o l e i n Vi a c o m’ s d e c i s i o n t o t e r mi n a t e h i m. O t her t erm i nat ed empl oy ees s har ed hi s s us pi ci on and, on D ece m ber21, 1 9 9 8 , tw o fo rm er V iaco m em p loy ee s, N o rm an M u ell er an d H arry B el l as , fi l ed EE O C char ges , al l egi ng that they w er e t erm i nat ed as part of a “patt ern a nd schem e of sy st em at i c dis cri m i nati on against o lder w o rke rs. ” (A p p . at 15 1 -54

. ) I n A ugus t1999, M uel l erand B el l as fi l ed a col l ect i ve ac t i on underthe A D E A , i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( the “M uel l er - B el l as act i on”)

. T he A D E A i ncorpor at es the col l ect i ve ac ti o n pr ovi s i ons of the Fai rL aborSt andar ds A ct( “FL SA ”) , 29 U

. S

. C

. § 2 1 6 (b). S ee 2 9 U

. S

. C

. § 6 2 6 (b) (i n co rpo rati n g § 2 1 6 (b)). 3 U nl i ke cl as s act i ons governed by R ul e 23 of the Feder al R ul es of C iv il P ro c e d u re , in w h ic h p o te n tia l c la s s m e m b e rs m a y“ o p t o u t,” co ll ec ti v e a cti o n s u n d er th e F L S A req u ir e po tential class m em b ers t o not i fythe cour tof thei rdes i r e t o “opti n” t o the ac t i on. See 29 U

. S. C

. § 2 1 6 (b) ( “N o empl oy ee s hal l be a pa r typl ai nt i ff t o any s uch ac t i on unl es s he gi ves hi s cons ent i n w r i t i ng t o become s uch a partyand s uch cons enti s fi l ed i n the courti n w hi ch s uch ac t i onSee al s o W hal en v. W

. R

. G r ace & C o. , 56 F. 3d 504, 506 4 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “Sect i on 7( b) of th e A D E A i ncorpor at es the enfor cement‘ pow er s , r emedi es and proc edur es ’ of § 16( b) of the F a ir L a b o r S tan d a rd s A c t, 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 (b ), w h ich p ro v id e s, in r el evantpart , that‘ [a] n act i on . . . m aybe maintaine d .

. . byany one or m or e empl oy ees forand i n behal f of hi m s el f orthemsel ves an d o ther e m p loy ee s sim il arlysitu ated

. ’”) (qu o ti n g § 2 1 6 (b )); G ray so n v . K M art C o rp., 7 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 1 0 6 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ) (“In creat i ng a coll ect i ve act i on proced ure for A D E A act i on s, C on gress cl ear l y adopt ed t he opt

- i n j oi nder pr ocedur es of sec t i on 216( b) of the F L S A and th u s im pli edlyrej ect ed the R ule 23 [o pt- ou t ] cl ass ac ti o n p roc ed u res a p p li ca b le t o T it le V II acti o n s. ”). Subcl as s I , r el at i ng t o M uel l er’ s and B el l as ’ s cl ai m of 5 dis cri m i natoryt erm i nati on decis i on s, w as defined as: A l l U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens empl oy ed by W esti n g h o u se E lectri c C o rpo ra ti o n . . . w h o w ere des i gnat ed by W est i nghous e as “Pr ofes s i onal s ” or “M anage r s ” and w ho w er e, atanyt i m e betw een J anuary1 , 1994 and D ece m ber31, 1999, invo l un t ari l yt erm i nated from em ploym ent w ith W es t i nghous e ( or w ho el ect ed r et i r ementaft erbei ng i nfo rm ed thattheir em ploym ent w i th W est i ng ho use w as goi ng t o be i nvol unt ar i l yt erm i nated) and w ho w er e, atthe t i m e of s uch i nvol unt aryt erm i nat i on ( or re tir e m e n t) , 4 0 y e a rs o f a g e o r o ld e r. (A p p . at 19 2 .) S u b c las s II, re latin g to M u e ller’ s a n d B e llas ’s c laim of d i scr i m i nati on throug h am end m ents t o th e W est i ng ho use P ensi on P l an in 199 4, w as defined as: A l l part i ci pant s i n the W est i nghous e Pens i on Pl an w ho w er e 40 y ear s o f ag e or ol deron J anuary1, 1995, and w ho t ook the “l um p s um ” opt i on betw een 5 is bro u g h t. ”). 4 O n M ar ch 14, 2001, the di s tr i ctcourtcondi t i onal l ycert i fi ed tw o s ub- cl as s es of pl ai nt i ffs i n the M uel l er - B el las ac t i on. ( See 5J anuary1995, and D ece m ber31, 1999. (I d .) 6 A pp. at191- 92. ) R uehl opt ed i n t o both s ubcl as s es on M ar ch 28, 2001. V i acom moved f or dece r t i fi cat i on of the s ubcl as s es on M ay 13, 2002 ar gui ng, among ot herthi n g s, tha tnei thergr oup of pl ai nt i ffs w as “si m il arl ys i tuat ed” ( as r equi r ed fora col l ect i ve a ct i on un der the F L S A or A D E A ) “because t heyhav e dis p a ra te f a c tu a l an d e m p lo ym e n t se tti n g s, th e re a re su b sta n tial c o n f licts among m ember s of ea ch s ubcl as s , and ther e ar e numer ous i n d i v i d u a l i z e d d e f

e n s e s t o th e i r c l a i m s . ” ( A p p . a t 1 9 3

. ) On D ec ember9, 2002, the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed V i acom’ s m ot i on, d e c e r t i f i e d b o th s u b c l a s s e s , a n d d i s m i s s e d th e a c t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e ty. O n M arc h 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , the o p t- in p lai n ti ff s, inclu d in g R u e h l, w ere n o tif ie d o f th e d e c e rt if

ic a tio n . N ear l ys i x m onths l at er , on O ctob er 14, 2003, R uehl fi l ed h i s f i r s t , i n d e p e n d e n tc h a r g e o f a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n wi th th e EE OC. A b o u t f o u r m o n th s late r, o n Ja n u a ry2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , h e c o m m e n c e d th is a c tio n u n d e r th e A D E A in th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n s ylv a n ia

. O n A u g u st 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , af ter li m it ed d isco v ery o n w h eth e r R u eh l’ s w ai verof A D E A cl ai m s w as val id, V i acom fi l ed a mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t, arg u in g th a t R u e h l’s E E O C c h a rg e a n d h is di s tr i ctcou rtcompl ai ntw er e both unt i m el y . O n N ovember18, 2004, the C our t deni ed t he m ot i on, hol di ng thatdes pi t e the fa ci al u n tim e lin e ss o f

R u e h l’s E E O C c h a rg e u n d e r th e A D E A , h is c laim coul d be s aved by ei ther the “s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e, ” w hi ch w oul d al l ow hi m t o r el yon the fi l i ng dat e of M uel l er ’ s t i m el yE E O C char ge, or byequi t abl e t ol l i ng bas ed on al l eged defe ct s i n the R el eas e R uehl s i g n e d o n h i s l a s td a ya tVi a c o m. O n M ar ch 9, 2005, the D i s tr i ct C our tcert i fi ed i t s or derfor i nt er l ocut oryappea l pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1292( b) , fi ndi ng
“ su b sta n tial g ro u n d s f

o r a d if f e r e n c e o f

o p in io n e x ist a s to b o th c o n tro lli n g iss u e s o f

law ,” re so lu tio n o f

w h ich “ w o u ld m a ter ially advanc e the t erm i nat i on of thi s l i t i gat i on” and “thr ee r el at ed ca s es i n v o l v i n g 6 7 p l a i n t i f

f s . ” ( Ap p . a t 2 2

- 2 3

. ) On J a n u a ry3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , we gr ant ed V i acom’ s pet i t i on fori nt er l ocut oryr evi ew . T h is appea lO u r rev iew o f th e D istri c t C o u rt ’s de n ial o f su m m ary 6 j udgm enti s pl enary . See M i l l erv. B ol ger , 802 F. 2d 660, 662 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). W e a p p lyth e sa m e sta n d a r d a s th e D istric t C o u rt:
“ S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n lyw h e re , d ra w in g a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favor of the nonm ovi ng party , ther e i s no g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a r tyis ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Lexi ng t on I ns . C o. v. W es t ern Pa. H os p. , 423 F. 3d 318, 322 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed ). W e al s o exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s choi ce and i nt erpr et at i on of appl i cabl e t ol l i ng pr i nci pl es and i t s concl us i on thatfac t s perm i t equi t abl e t ol l i ng of th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . S e e E b b e rt v . D a im le r C h rysl e r C o rp ., 3 1 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 7 fol l ow ed. 6
I I . Va l i d i t y o f

Re l e a s e o f

ADE A Cl a i ms A s a thr es hol d m att er , w e w i l l cons i derthe v ali di tyof R u e h l’s w a iv e r o f

A D E A c laim s, w h ich f o rm s th e b a sis o f

h is equi t abl e t ol l i ng ar gum ent
. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tthat th e R e lea se R u e h l sig n e d v io late s th e O ld e r W o rk e rs B e n e f it Pr otect i on A c t( “ O W BPA ” ) , 29 U

. S. C. § 6 26

. The O W BPA i m po ses s pecifi c requi rem ents for r el eases coveri ng A D E A cl ai m s. I n part i cul ar , § 626( f) ( 1) ( F) of O W B PA pr ovi des thata w ai verof cl ai m s i s notknow i ng and vol unt ary unl es s , at a m i ni m um , “( i ) the in d iv id u a l is g iv e n a p e rio d o f a t lea st 2 1 d a y s w it h in w h ich to c o n sid e r th e a g re e m e n t; o r (ii) if a w a iv e r is re q u e ste d in connec t i on w i th an exi ti ncent i ve orotherempl oym entt erm i nat i on p ro g ra m o f

f e re d to a g ro u p o r c las s o f e m p lo y e e s, th e in d iv id u a l is gi ven a pe r i od of atl eas t45 day s w i thi n w hi ch to co ns i derthe a g re e m e n t.” Id . In th e latte r situ a tio n , the e m p lo y e r m u st i n f o rm[ ] th e i n d i v i d u a l i n wr i t i n g i n a m anner cal cul at ed t o be under s t ood bythe av e r a g e i ndi vi dual el i gi bl e t o part i ci pat e, as t o: ( i ) anycl as s , uni t , or gr oup of i ndi vi dual s cover ed by s uch pr ogr am, an yel i gi bi l i tyfac t or s fors uchT he R el eas e thatR uehl s i gned w as undi s put edl ygoverned 7 b y§ 6 2 6 (f)(1)(H ). 8 pr ogr am, and anyt i m e l i m i t s appl i cabl e t o s uch pr ogr am; and (ii) th e jo b tit les a n d a g e s o f a ll i n d iv id u a ls e lig ib le o r se lec ted f

o r th e p ro g ra m , an d th e a g e s o f a ll i ndi vi dual s i n the s ame j ob cl as s i fi cat i on or or gani z a t i o n a l u n i twho a r e n o te l i g i b l e o rs e l e c t ed f o rth e p r o g r a m. Id. at § 6 2 6 (f)(1)(H ). 7 In si gni ng the R el eas e, R uehl aff i r m ed thathe w as i nform ed, i n w r i t i ng, byV i acom, about ( i ) anycl as s , uni torgr oup of i ndi vi dual s cover ed by th e In v o lu n tar yS e p a ra tio n P ro g ra m , a n ye lig ib ili ty fac t or s forthe I nvol unt arySepar at i on Pr ogr am, and anyt i m e l i m i t s appl i cabl e; and ( i i ) the j ob t i t l es and ages of al l i ndi vi dual s el i gi bl e ors el ect ed forthe In v o lu n tar yS e p a ra tio n P ro g ra m , an d th e a g e s o f a ll i ndi vi dual s i n the s ame j ob cl as s i fi cat i on or or g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i twho a r e n o te l i g i b l e o rs e l ect ed f o rth e p r o g r a m. (A p p . at147- 48. ) T hi s l anguage , dr aft ed byV i acom, tr acks the l anguage of the O W B PA

. I ti s undi s put ed, how ever , thatV i acom fai l ed to actual l ypr ovi de R uehl w i th the r equi r ed i nform at i on.

N o n e th e les s, V iac o m a rg u e s th a t th e R e lea se c o m p lies w ith the O W B PA beca us e V i acom w o u ld ha ve made the i nform at i on a v a ilab le to R u e h l h a d h e re q u e ste d it. R u e h l re sp o n d s th a t h e d id notr eques tthe i nform at ion , b u t s i gned the w ai vers ay i ng he di d, beca us e he w as afr ai d thatan yr eques torm odi fi cat i on of the R el eas e w oul d del ay hi s r ece i ptof pens i on benef i t s . H e ar gues that th e Re l e a s e i s i n v a l i d u n d e rth e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 6 2 6 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( H)9 b ec au se th at pro v isi o n p lace s the bu rde n o n the e m p loy er to e n su re th a t w a iv e rs a re k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y . R u e h l is c o rre c t. T he O W B PA pl ace s th e b u rden on e m pl oy er s s eeki ng re lea se s to “ in f

o rm [ ] th e in d iv id u a l in w riting ” o f th e d e m o g ra p h ic i nform at i on l i s t ed i n § 626( f) ( 1) ( H )

. V i a c om neverpr ovi ded R uehl th e in f o rm a tio n , a n d th e R e lea se d o e s n o t m e n tio n R u e h l’s rig h t to re c e iv e it, n o r d o e s it m e n tio n th a t th e in f o rm a tio n w a s a v a ilab le u p o n req u est o r h o w o n e m igh t ob tai n the in fo rm ati o n . R u eh l’ s w ai verw as ther efor e notkn o w i ng and vol unt aryunderthe OW BPA. Hav i n g th e e mpl oy ee s ay h e w a s in f o rm e d in w ri ti n g

— w h en h e w as n o t— d o e s n o t sat isfythe O W B P A ’s requi rem ents
. O u r stri ct co n stru cti o n o f th e O W B P A ’s disclo su re req u ir em en t fo ll o w s the d ir ec ti o n o f th e S u p rem e C o u rtin O u b re v . E n erg yO p era ti o n s, Inc

. , 5 2 2 U

. S

. 4 2 2 (19 9 8 ): T h e p o licy o f th e O W B P A is

. . . to p ro tec t th e rig h ts a nd be ne fi t s of

ol de rw orke r s . The O W BPA i m pl ement s C ongr es s ’ pol i cyvi a a str i ct , unqual i fi ed sta tu to rystric tu re o n w a iv e rs, a n d w e a re b o u n d to t ake Congre s s ati t s w or d. C on gr es s i m pos ed s peci fi c du t i es on employers w ho s eek r eleas es of cert ai n clai m s cr eat ed byst atute. C on gress del i neat ed thes e dut i es w i th pr eci s i on and w i thout q u a l i f i c a t i o n . . . . Co u r t s c a n n o twi th e a s e p r e s u me rat i fi cat i on of thatw hich C on gress forbi ds.

. . . T he s t atut e cr eat e s a s e r i es of pr er equi s i t es for know i ng and vol unt aryw ai ver s and i m pos es af f i r m at i ve dut i es of

dis cl os ur e and w ai t i ng peri od s. T he O W B PA governs the effec t under fede r al l aw of w ai ver s orr el eas es o n A D E A cl ai m s and i ncor por at es no exc ept i ons orqual i f i cat i ons . Id. at 42 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). C ons i s t entw i th O ubr e, s ever al C our t s of A ppeal s have req u ir ed str ictco m p li an ce w ith the O W B P A ’s disclo su reV iacom and am i cus cur i ae , U ni t ed St at es C hamberof 8 C o m m e rc e , p o in t to th e f a c t th a t th e E E O C a sk e d f o r p u b lic c o m m e n ts o n w h e th e r p ro v id in g d e m o g ra p h ic in f o rm a tio n o n ly “upon r eques t ” s at i s fi es § 626( f) ( 1) ( H )

. T h ey argue thatthe E E O C ’s ac t i on s how s thatthe pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e does notr equi r e appe ndi ng the m at er i al t o the r el eas e. T heyal s o poi nt t o comm ent s r ece i ved bythe EE O C fr om the Equal E m pl oym ent A dvi s oryC ounci l , w hi ch s t at e that “a w ai verw i l l notbe r ender ed i nval i d i f the i nform at i on [i n s ubpar agr aph H i s ] m ade a vai l abl e for exami nat i on i ns t ead of b eing d is tr i but ed i n ful l

. . . . [i ] f the e m p lo y e r sim p ly i nf

or m s al l el igi bl e em

pl oyee s thatthe addi t i onal i nf or m at i on is avai labl e f

ori ns pect i on i n the per

s onnel of f i ce or o th e rc o n v e n ie n t lo c a tio n , tho se i nter est ed w i l l be a b le to access a n d e x a m in e it.” See V i acom Br. at 57 ( ci t i ng J ul y 22, 1992 l ett er fr om E qual E m pl oym ent A dvi s ory C ounci l t o E E O C at 22, A pp. at 107) ( emphasi s added)

. H er e, V i acom nei therappende d the re qu i red i nfo rm at i on t o the R el ease no r i nfo rm ed em ploy ees in w riting a b o u t h o w to g e t it

. 10 r equi r ement s . See K ruchow s ki v. W ey erhaeus erC o. , 446 F. 3d 10 90 , 10 95 (10t h C i r. 20 0 6 ) (ho l ding w ai ver i nv al i d b ecause empl oy erdefi ned “de ci s i onal uni t ” t oo br oadl yand “t erm i nat ed e mp l o y e e s [ mu s t ] b e i n f o r me d o f th e ‘ d e c i s i o n a l u n i t ’ a tth e t i me th e y c o n s i d e r whe th e r t o wai v e a n y AD EA c l a i ms . ” ) ; Adams v. A m er i t ech Servs . , I nc. , 231 F. 3d 414, 431 ( 7th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng that “s al arygrade” i nst ead o f “j ob t i t l es” i s t oo gen eral t o fu rni sh the ki nd of i nform at i on the s t atu te c o nt empl at es ; and s t at i ng that “[a ] s a form of w or kerpr ot ect i on l egi s l at i on, the OW BPA de ma nds i nform at i on thatal l ow s peopl e t o as cert ai n w hethertheyar e bei ng tr eat ed fa i r l yvi s - a- vi s thei rpeer s . ”) ; T ung v. T exac o I nc. , 150 F. 3d 2 0 6 , 2 0 9 (2 d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ) (ho lding release inv ali d w h ere demogra phi c i nform at i on w as gi ven t o empl oy ee on the dayhe sign ed the re lease , n o t 45 d ay s b ef o re, i n ac co rda n ce the O W B P A ). V iaco m arg u es th at i f w e inv ali d ate R u eh l’ s w aive r, empl oy er s w i l l be for ced t o att ach vol um i nous amount s of u n w a n ted m a ter ial to e v e ryre lea se . T h is, V iac o m c o n ten d s, w o u ld u n dul y bur den both the empl oy er and the empl oy ee. B ut w e a re 8 not s ugges t i ng that V i acom w as r equi r ed t o i ncl ude boxes of pape rS e c tio n 7 (d ) o f th e A D E A , 2 9 U .S .C

. § 6 2 6 (d ), d e tails th is 9 “exha us t i on r equi r ement ”: N o ci vi l act i on m aybe comm ence d byan i ndi vi dual underthi s s ect i on [author i zi ng ci vi l act i ons ] unt i l 60 day s aft er a cha r ge al l egi ng unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on has been f

i l ed w i th the E qual E m pl oym ent O ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on. Such a cha r ge s hal l be fi l ed- ( 1) w i thi n 180 day s aft er the al l ege d u n l aw ful pr act i ce oc curr ed; or (2 ) in a c a se to w h ich se c tio n 6 3 3 (b ) o f th is titl e appl i es , w i thi n 300 day s afterthe al l eged unl aw ful pr act i ce oc curr ed, or w i thi n 30 day s aft err ece i ptby the i ndi vi dual of not i ce of t erm i nat i o n of pr ocee di ngs u n d er S tat e law , w h iche v er is earli er. U pon rec ei vi ng s uch a c har ge, the C om m i s s i on s hal l pr om pt l ynot i fyal l per s ons named i n s uch char ge as pr os pect i ve def endant s i n the act i on and s hal l pr om pt l ys eek t o el i m i n at e anyal l eged unl aw ful pr act i ce byi nform al m ethods of 11 w i th eac h and eve r yw ai ver . W e hol d onl ythatR uehl ’ s w ai verw as i nval i d beca us e V i acom nei theratt ache d the r equi r ed i nform at i on t o the R el ea se noradequa t el yi nform ed hi m of the r el evant in f o rm a tio n , o r h o w to g e t it , in a n yw riting a t all. I I I . T i m el i nes s of

E E O C C harge R uehl di d not fi l e an E E O C char ge unt i l O ct ober14, 2003. T hat w as 2135 day s fr om the fi r s tadver s e empl oym ent act i on— overfi ve y ear s l at e. G ener al l y , a j udi ci al compl ai ntunder the A D E A w i l l be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i f a s uppor t i ng E E O C char ge w as notfi l ed w i thi n 180 or 300 day s ( dependi ng on s t at e l aw ) of not i fi cat i on t o the empl oy ee of the adve r s e empl oym entacti o n . “Li ke Ti t l e V I I , A D E A has 9conci l i at i on, confe r ence , and per s uas i on. Id. (fo o tno te ad d ed ).

Sect i on 633( b) , expl ai ns w hat m akes a s t at e a “ d ef err al 10 s t at e”: I n the cas e of a n al l eged unl aw ful pr act i ce oc curr i ng i n a St at e w hi ch has a l aw pr ohi bi t i ng di s cr i m i nat i on i n empl oym ent b ecaus e of a ge and e s t abl i s hi ng or author i zi ng a St ate author i tyt o gr antors eek r el i ef fr om s uch di s cr i m i nat ory pr act i ce, no s ui tm aybe br o u g h tu n d e rs e c t i o n 6 2 6 o f th i s t i t l e b e f

o r e the expi r at i on of s i xtyday s aft erpr ocee di ngs have be en comm ence d underthe St at e l aw , u n l es s s uch pr ocee di ngs have been e ar l i ert erm i nat ed: Pr ovi ded, T hats uch s i xty - dayper i od s hal l be ext ended t o one hundr ed and tw entyday s du ri n g the fi r s ty earaft er the ef fec t i ve dat e of su ch St at e l aw . I f any r equi r ementforthe comm ence m entof s uch pr o c e e d i n g s i s i mpo s e d b ya St a t e a u th o r i tyo th er than a r equi r ementof the fi li ng of a w r i t t en and s i gned s t at ementof the fa ct s upon w hi ch the pr ocee di ng i s bas ed, the proc eedi ng s hal l be dee m ed to h a v e b e e n c o m m e n c e d f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

th is s ubs ect i on att he t i m e s uch s t at ementi s s entby r e g i s t e r e d m a i l t o th e a p p r o p r i a t e S t a t e a u th o r i ty. I d. 12 defe rr al pr ovi s ion s and the t i m e forfi l i ng a cha r ge depe nds on w hetherdefe r r al appl i es . I n defe rr al s t at es , s uch as Penns y l vani a, the cha r ge mustbe f

il ed w i thi n 300 day s of the al l egedl yi l l egal act
. ” Ser edi ns ki v. C l i ft on Pr eci s i on Pr ods

. C o. , 776 F. 2d 56, 63 10 ( 3d C i r . 1985)

. T hus , R uehl had 300 day s fr om D ece m ber 10, 1 9 9 7 , the d a yh e w a s n o tifie d h is jo b w o u ld b e e lim in a ted , to f ile an E E O C char ge. See W at s on v. E as t m an K odak C o. , 235 F. 3d 851, 852- 53 ( 3d C i r . 2000 ) ( “[A ] n adver s e empl oym entact i on occur s , and the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ther efor e begi ns t o run, atthe tim e th e e m p lo y e e re c e iv e s n o tice o f th a t ac tio n a n d ter m in a tio n isI n addi t i on t o the exhaus t i on r equi r ement , the A D E A has 11 a fi l i ng r equi r ement , underw hi ch a j udi ci al compl ai nt m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n 9 0 d a y s o f

e i th e r( 1 ) r e c e i p to f

a n o t i c e th a ta c h a r g e f i l ed wi th t h e E E OC h a s b e e n d i s mi s s e d o r( 2 ) n o t i c e E E OC pr ocee di ngs ar e bei ng t erm i nat ed b y the EE O C

. See Sper l i ng v. H offman- L a R o ch e, I nc. , 24 F. 3d 463, 464 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng 29 U

. S. C

. § 626( e) )

. I n cas es w her e a pl aintiff h as j oi ned a cl as s orcol l ect i ve ac t i on compl ai nt , and cert i fi cat i on w as deni ed, o r a c o n d iti o n a llyc e rtifie d c las s w a s d e c e rtifie d , c o u rts h a v e h e ld th a t an in d iv id u a l j u d icia l co m p lain t m u st b e f iled w ith in n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s o f

th e d e n ia l o f c e rt if

ic a tio n o r d e c e rt if

ic a tio n . S e e , e .g ., A rm stro n g v . M a rtin M a rie tta C o rp ., 1 3 8 F .3 d 1 3 7 4 , 1 3 9 1 -9 2 (1 1 th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ); B asc h v . G rou n d R o u n d , Inc

. , 1 3 9 F

. 3 d 6 , 1 1 (1st C ir

. 1998)

. W e need not cons i der w hether R uehl ’ s j udi ci al compl ai nt w as t i m el ybeca us e, forthe re as ons w e expl ai n bel ow , R uehl has f a iled to m e e t th e a d m in istra tiv e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t. 13 a d elay ed b u t i n ev it ab le resu lt

. ”). A bs ent an ap p li ca b le sav ing d o ctri n e, R u eh l’ s E E O C char ge w as u n ti m ely , an d h is c ase m u st be d ism issed

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt 11 hel d, h o wev e r , th a tRue h l ’ s c l a i m w a s s a v e d b yth e d o c tr i n e of equi t abl e t ol l i ng or , i n the al t ernat i ve, the si ngl e fi l i ng rul e. Forthe reas on s that fol l ow , w e con cl ud e t hat nei ther doc tri ne ap pli es. A . Equi t abl e Tol l i ng T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied su m m a ryju d g m e n t b e c a u se it f o u n d th e re w e re m a ter ial iss u e s o f f a c t ab o u t w h e th e r e q u itab le t o l l i n g s h o u l d b e a p p l i e d t o Ru e h l ’ s c h a r g e - f i l i n g d e a d l i n e . On a p p e a l , Rue h l a r g u e s th a te q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o rtwo re a so n s: (1 ) V iac o m a c tiv e lym isle d h im b y“ o b tain in g a n in v a lid w ai verof cl ai m s , ” that“l ul l ed” hi m “i nt o bel i evi ng he ha d gi ven up hi s abi l i tyt o pur s ue a c l ai m of age di s cr i m i nat i on; ” and ( 2) V i acom act i vel ym i s l ed hi m byfai l i ng t o m ake r equi r ed di s c l os ur es underthe O W B PA

. S ee R u eh l B r . at25- 26. W e conc l ude that R uehl has notdemonstr at ed ex tr aor di naryci r cumst ance s that w oul d j us t i fyequi t abl e t ol l i ng.14 T he A D EA ’ s t i mel y e xh a us t i on r e qu i r e ment i s a n o n -ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite th a t, l ik e a sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, is subjectt o eq uit able to lli ng . C om m c’ns W orkers of A m . v. N

. J. D ept
. of Per s . , 282 F. 3d 213, 216- 17 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (her ei naft er “C om m uni cat i ons W or ker s ”)

. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng s t ops the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fr om runni ng w hen an E E O C char ge’ s acc rual dat e has al r eady pas s ed. O s hi verv. L evi n, Fi s hbei n, Sedr an & B erm an, 38 F

. 3 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ). In O sh iv e r, w e e x p lain e d tw o re q u ire m e n ts f o r e q u itab le t ol l i ng i n an empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on cas e:
the e q u i t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne mayexcus e the p lai n ti ff ’s no n -co m p li an ce w ith the s tatu tory l i m i t at i ons pr ovi s i on ati s s ue w hen i t appea r s that( 1) the def endant act i vel y m i s l ed the pl ai nt i ff r es pect i ng th e re a s o n f

o r t h e p la in tif

f ’s d i s c h a rg e , and

(2 ) th is d ecept i on caus ed

the p l ai nti ff’s no n -c o m p lian c e w ith the l i m i t at i ons pr ovi s i on. I d. ( emphasi s added)

. I n addi t i on, “equi t abl e t o ll ing r equi r es the pl ai nt i ff t o demonstr at e thathe ors he coul d not , bythe exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e di li g en ce , h av e d isco v ered es s ent i al i nform at i on bear i ng on hi s or her cl ai m . ” I n r e M us hr oom T r ans p. C o. , 382 F. 3d 325, 3 3 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted); see also H art v. J

. T

. B akerC hem. C o. , 59 8 F. 2d 829, 834 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( deny i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng al though empl oy ee w as gi ven four r eas ons for her di s char ge, none r el at ed t o her g en d er, “ her s us pi ci on s [o f gende rdi s cr i m i nat i on] w er e s uffi ci entt o l ead a r easona bl e per s on t o i nqui r e furtheri nt o the r eas ons forher d isch arg e” ). R uehl ar gues , fi r s t , thathe w as “ac t i vel ym i s l ed” bythe i nval i d R el eas e i nt o bel i evi ng he had w ai ved al l cl ai m s underthe A D E A

. T he p robl em w i th thi s ar gu m e n t is that R ueh l al l eges a m i s r epr es ent at i on of l aw , n o t of fac t
. A l though R uehl m ayhave been mi s l ed bythe p res ent at i on of an i nval i d r el eas e, thi s di d not caus e hi s l at e fi l i ng beca us e he, l i ke eve ry one, has acc es s t o the l aw . See U t ah Pow er& L i ght C o. v. Fed. I ns . C o. , 983 F. 2d 1549, 1 5 5 6 (1 0 th C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ [ N ]o o n e c a n b e d e c e iv e d b y aW eexp ress no opi ni on aboutw hetherR uehl has 12 es t abl i s hed a f

actual bas i s forhi s cl ai m thatV i acom act i vel ym i s l ed hi m , butw e r ej ectV i acom’ s l egal ar gum entthatR uehl cannot s how “ac t i vel ym i s l eadi ng” conduc tunderO s hi verbas ed on a fai l ure t o d i scl ose un der the O W B P A

. S ee M ey er v. R i egel Prods. C o. , 720 F. 2d 303, 308- 09 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( t ol l i ng the sta tut e of l i m i t at i ons on E E O C char ge w her e empl oy er t ol d empl oy ee he w as bei ng fi r ed bec aus e of c orpor at e r eor gani zat i on, b u t omi t t ed the fa ct th at a y o u n g er e m p loy ee h ad b ee n h ir ed to tak e o v er h is j o b ); B onham v. D r es s erI ndus

. , I nc. , 569 F. 2d 187, 193 ( 3d C i r . 1977) (“[C ]as es m ayari se w here the em ploy er’ s ow n acts o ro mis s i o ns h a v e lu lled th e p lain tiff

i n to f o re g o in g p ro m p t atte m p ts to v in d ica te hi s r i ght s . ”) ( quot ed i n M ey er , 720 F. 2d at307 and O s hi ver , 38 F. 3d at1387) ( emphasi s added)

. V i acom fur therinsist s t hatthe onl yl e g a l c o n s e q u e n c e f o r f a i l i n g t o f

o l l o w th e d i c t a t e s of 15 mi s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l a w b e c a u s e e v e ry o n e h a s a c c e s s t o th e l a w .

. . . ”)

. H ad he been di l i gent , R uehl w oul d have di s cover ed thatthe R el eas e w as i nval i d i n t i m e t o fi l e a char ge. See M us hr oom , 382 F. 3d at339 ( r equi r i ng, forequi t abl e t ol l i ng, th at pl ai nt i ff s how r eas onabl e di l i gence w oul d nothave r evea l ed e s s e n t i a l i nform at i on bear i ng on hi s orhercl ai m )

. I ndeed, R uehl had re as on t o s us pect the R el eas e w as i nval i d beca us e i t s t at ed— and he affi r m ed— that he had s een demogra phi c i nform at i on, even though none had be en pr ovi ded. R uehl ar gues , s econd, thatther e ar e mat er i al i s s ues of fa ct abo ut w hetherV i acom act i velym i sl ed h im b y f ai l i ng t o d i scl ose O W B P A in f

o rm a tio n . H e m a in tain s th a t th is in f o rm a tio n w o u ld h av e re v ea led a g e d iscri m ination an d u n d erm ined V iaco m ’s non- di s cr i m i nat oryexpl anat i on forh is te r m i nat i on. B uteven as s um i ng w e agr ee w i th R uehl that , dependi ng on w hatthe di s c l o s u r e s r e v e a l , a j u ryc o u l d i n f e rth a tVi a c o m a c t i v e l ymi s l ed h im a s “ p a rt o f

a n in ten tio n a l p lan to h id e v ital in f o rm a tio n f

ro m its e m p lo y e e s ,” R u e h l’ s d ilig e n c e is a ls o in is s u e . (S e e A p p . a t 1 7 .) Ru e h l c a n n o tb e n e f

i t f r o m e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g u n l e s s h e s h o ws b o th th a t V iac o m a c ti v e lym isle d h im a b o u t th e re a so n f o r h is di s char ge, and

thatthi s dece pt i on caus ed his l at e fi l i ng. See 12O W B PA i s that R uehl ’ s w ai veri s i nval i d, and thati tcan ha ve no bear i ng on equi t abl e t ol l i ng. T hi s ar gum entm i s s es the poi nt : our t as k i s t o det erm i ne w hetherther e i s a mat eri al i s s ue of f act regar ding w hetherV i acom act i velym i sl ed R ueh l ab o u this cause of ac t i on, and m at er i al om i s s i ons ar e r el evant t o thati nqui ry . See M us hr oom , 382 F. 3d at339 ( “I n as s es s i ng the fi ndi ng that[the pl ai nt i ff] fai l ed as a m att erof l aw t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e di l i gence forpurpos es of .

. . equi t abl e t ol l i ng, w e ar e gui ded bythe gene r al rule tha t suc h d eterm ination s are typ icall yw ith in th e jury ’s pr ovi nce unl es s the fa ct s ar e s o cl ear that r eas onabl e mi nds cannot d iffe r . . . . ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). 16 O s hi ver , 38 F. 3d at1387. T h e re c o rd in th is c a se d o e s n o t a p e rm it a f in d in g th a t R u e h l m e t th e se c o n d re q u ire m e n t. S pecifi ca lly , R ueh l adm i t t ed at hi s depo si t i on that he fi rs t thoughthe had be en s ubj ect ed t o age di s cr i m i nat i on i n the s um m er of 1998: I gues s w hen I w as pr obabl y the ol des t per s on i n the depart m entthatw as let go, and I w as the onl yone notoffe r ed a j ob w i th the out s our cer . . . . [ar ound] S u mme ro f

‘ 9 8 I gu e s s , y o u k n o w, a r o u n d th e t i me o f m yte rm in a tio n . . . . ( A pp. at295. ) R uehl al s o admi t t ed thati n 1994 he thoughtthere m ayhave be en age di s cr i m i nat i on at V i acom w hen, i n hi s pr es ence , V i acom’ s C hi ef Fi nanci al O ffi cer r efe rr ed t o an ol derempl oy ee a s a “ b lo c k e r,” a n d s a id th a t V ia c o m n e e d e d to “ g e t h im o u t o f h e re .” ( A p p . a t 2 9 2

. ) Rue h l p e r c e i v e d th i s a t th e t i me t o b e th e type of “comm ent s [that ] w er e pr obabl ym ade a boutm e t he s ame w ay w h en I w asn ’tin the roo m . ” (Id

. ) T hes e fa ct s , w hi ch w oul d have s uppor t ed R uehl ’ s caus e of act i on , w ere k no w n t o him bythe ti m e he w as t erm i nated i n A ug ust 19 98

. H e has fai l ed t o explai n how V i acom ’s fai l ure to d isc l ose u n d e r th e O W B P A , h o w e v e r m isle a d in g , ca u se d h is f a ilu re to pur s ue a c l ai m bas ed on inf or m at i on he al r eadyhad. R uehl has ther efor e fa i l ed t o s how the t ype of exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s thatW e expr es s no opi ni on on w hether M uel l er ’ s char ge w as 13 t i m el yfi l ed. 17 w arr antequi t abl e t ol l i ng. B . “Si ngl e Fi l i ng R ul e” T he D i s tr i ct C our thel d, al t ernat i vel y , thatthe s i ngl e fi l i ng rule pe rm it s R u eh l, as a fo rm er p lai n ti ff in the d ec erti fied M u ell erB el l as cl as s , t o “pi ggyback” on M uel l er ’ s E E O C char ge, ther eby d isp e n sin g w ith th e re q u ire m e n t th a t h e f ile a tim e lyc h a rg e o f

h is ow n. T he s i ngl e fi l i ng ( or“pi ggybacki ng”) rul e i s a j udge- m ade 13 e x c e p tio n to th e re q u ire m e n t th a t p lain tiff s e x h a u st th e ir admi ni s tr ati ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng s ui t
. C om m uni cat i ons W o rk e rs , 2 8 2 F .3 d a t 2 1 7 (“ U n d e r th e s in g le f ilin g ru le d o c tr in e , a p lain tiff w h o h a s n o t f

iled a n E E O C c h a rg e w ith in th e re q u isite t i m e per i od can j oi n a cl as s ac ti on w i thouts at i s fy i ng ei ther r equi r ement

— exhaus t i on and fi l i ng— i f the or i gi nal E E O C char ge fi l ed bythe pl ai nt i ff w ho s ubs equent l yfi l ed a c l as s act i on had al l eged cl as s bas ed di s cr i m i nat i on i n the EE O C char ge. ”) ; W hal en v. W

. R

. G rac e & C o. , 56 F. 3d 504, 506 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “[The sin g le f ili n g ru le] a llo w s a g g rie v e d in d iv id u a ls w h o f a ile d to f ile th e r e q u i r e d

. . . E E O C c h a r g e t o j o i n a c l a s s a c t i o n b r o u g h tb y a pl ai nt i ff w ho had fi l ed an EE O C char ge al l egi ng cl ass-w i de d iscri m ination

. ”). 1. Li m i t at i on o f

The Si ngl e Fi l i ng Rul e t o Cl as s and C oll ecti ve A cti on s B eg inn ing w ith L u sard i v . L ec h n er, 85 5 F

. 2 d 1 0 6 2 (3d C ir

. 19 8 8 ), w e have l i m i t ed appl i cat i on of the s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e t o the co ll ec ti v e a n d class a cti o n co n text. In L u sard i, th e d istri ct co u rt dece r t i fi ed a c ol l ect i ve ac t i on fi l ed byX er ox w or ker s underthe A D E A b e c a u se th e p lain tiff s d id n o t s a tisf

y th e A D E A ’s “ sim ilarly s itu a te d ” re q u ir e m e n t. 8 5 5 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 6 ; s e e a ls o 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 (b) (“A n ac ti o n . . . m ayb e m aintaine d

. . . b y an y o n e o r m o re empl oy ees forand i n behal f of hi m s el f orthemsel v es and other empl oy ees s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed. ”)

. T he cour t r el i ed i n parton the fa ct thatnoteverycl as s m emberhad fi l ed an i ndi vi dual E E O C char ge.W e o u t l i n e d the p u rp o s e o f f i l i n g d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms 14 fi r s tw i th the EE O C i n A nj el i no v. N ew Y or k T i m es C o. , 200 F. 3d 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ): T h e p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p o f th e f i l i n g o f th e E E OC char ge and the r ece i ptof the r i ghtt o s ue not i fi cat i on a re e ss e n tial p a rts o f

th e sta tu to ryp lan , d e sig n e d to corr ectd iscri m ination thro u gh admi ni s tr at i ve conci l i at i on and per s uas i on if pos s i bl e, r atherthan b y f o r ma l c o u r t a c t i o n . Be c a u s e th e a i m of t he s t atut orys cheme i s t o r es o lve d i s put es byi nform al conci l i at i on, pr ior to l i t i gat i on, s ui t s i n the di s tr i ct court ar e l i m i t ed t o m att er s of w hi ch the EE O C has h a d n o tic e a n d a c h a n c e , if a p p ro p ri a te , to s e ttle

. Id. at 93 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). W e re c o g n iz e d in S ta rc e s k i v . W e s tin g h o u s e E le c . C o rp ., 15 54 F. 3d 1089, 1099 n. 10 (3d C ir

. 1995) thatL ockhartw as eff ect i vel y overrul ed on unr el at ed gr ounds byH aze n PaperC o. v. B ig g in s, 5 0 7 U .S . 6 0 4 (1 9 9 3 ), w h ich re jec ted a n yre q u ire m e n t in A D E A act i ons , of “di r ect ” evi dence of di s cr i m i n ati o n, “outr ageous ” conduc tbyth e empl oy er , orpr oof thatage w as the pr edomi nantr atherthan a de t erm i nat i ve fa ct ori n the empl oym ent deci s i on. 18 See i d. at1076. O n app eal , w e r emanded the ca s e t o the di s tr i ct court for r econs i der at i on, beca us e w e agr eed w i th am i cus E E O C ’s pos i t i on thata s i ngl e, r epr es ent at i ve compl ai ntcan a chi eve the not i ce a nd conci li at i on purpos e of the EE O C fi l i ng, “[s ] o l ong as cl as s i s s ues ar e al l eged. ” I d. at 1 0 7 8 ; acc or d L ockhartv. 14 W esti n g h o u se C red itC o rp., 8 7 9 F

. 2 d 4 3 , 5 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ). 15 O n rem and , th e d ist ri ctcou rtagain decert i fi ed the cl ass, im p lem en ti n g o u r ho lding , b u t st il l fin d ing that the plaintiffs w ere no t“si m i l arl ysi tuated, ” beca use [t ] he mem bers o f t he pr opos ed cl as s come fr om differ ent de part m ents , groups , or gan i zat i on s, s ub- or gani zat i ons , uni t s and l ocal offi ces w i thi n the19 X er ox or gani zat i on. T he opt
- i n pl ai nt i ffs per form ed di ffe r entj obs atdi ffe r entgeogr aph i c l ocat i ons and w er e s u b

j e c tt o d i f

f e r e n tj o b a c t i o n s c o n c e rn i ng r educt i ons i n w or k for ce w hi ch occ urr ed atvar i ous t i m es as a r es ul tof var i ous deci s i ons bydi ffe r ent s uper v i s o r s m a d e on a dec ent r a l i zed em ploy ee-by -em ploy ee basi s. L u sard i v. X ero x C o rp., 1 2 2 F

. R

. D

. 4 6 3 , 4 6 5 (D

. N

. J. 1 9 8 8 ). T hen, i n T ol l i ver v. X er ox C orp. , 918 F. 2d 1052, 1055 ( 2d C i r . 1990) , the Second Ci r cu i tcons i der ed an i ndi vi dual act i on b ro u g h t b ya f

o rm e r L u sa rd i cla s s m e m b e r w h o h a d n o t f iled h is o w n tim e lyE E O C c h a rg e . T o lli v e r e x ten d e d th e sin g le f ili n g ru le b e y o n d th e c las s a c tio n c o n tex t, t o a n yin d iv id u a l ac tio n w h e re “ it can fai r l y be s ai d that no conci l i at ory purpos e w oul d be s erved by fi l i ng s epar at e EE O C char ges . ” I d. at 1058 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he courtr eas oned thatthe s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e ca n appl yev en w her e a cl a s s a c t i o n wou l d b e i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e th e p u rp o s e of t he a d m in istra tiv e f

ili n g re q u ire m e n t, t im e lyc o n c ili a tio n , is se p a ra te f r o m th e p u rp o s e s o f c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n . I d

. a t1 0 5 9

. I m p o r t a n t l y, the pl ai nt i ff’ s s t atus as a for m er m ember of a dece r t i fi ed cl as s w as i r r el evantt o t he hol di ng. W e re j ect ed t he S econd C i r cui t ’ s appr oach i n W hal en. 56 F. 3d at507. W hal en addr es s ed w hetherplai n ti ffs w ho had not f i l e d i n d i v i d u a l EEOC c h a r g e s c o u l d j o i n a p r e v i o u s l y - f i l e d AD EA act i on, pur s uantt o F eder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( b)

. I d. at 505- 06. T he fi ve pl ai nt i ffs i n the or i gi nal ac ti on had fi l ed a j oi nt compl ai nt , butnota col l ect i ve ac t i on. I d. at505. T he pr os pect i ve pl ai nt i ffs ar gued that the s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e appl i ed, and the di s tr i ct c o u r t , r e l y i n g o n T o l l i v e r , p e r m i t t e d th e j o i n d e r . I d

. a t5 0 6

. We r ever s ed, expl ai ni ng thatunderL us ar di , “[t ] her e i s no s ugges t i on th a t f ili n g a c h a rg e w it h a lleg a tio n s b ro a d e n o u g h to su p p o rt a s ubs equentcl as s act i on l aw s ui t all evi at es the bur den of f i l i ng the cl ass act i on i t sel f, w i th the at t end ant r equ i rem ent of cl ass cert i fi cat i on. ” I d. at507. W e furtheremphasi zed the conne ct i o n betw een the c e rtific a tio n p ro c e ss a n d p ro p e r a p p lica tio n o f th e sin g le f

ili n g ru leC our t s i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Pennsy lvani a have 16 gener al l yappl i ed i tpos t
- dece r t i fi cat i on, w her eas co ur t s i n the E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a have gener al l y not
. C om par e R ay v . C o n so l. R ail C o rp., N o . 9 8 -17 5 7 , at 7 (W

. D

. P a. Jun e 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 ); M cK ernan v. C ons ol

. R ai l C orp. , N o. 98- 1758, at 6 ( W

. D

. Pa. J une 29, 1999) ; H i l t on v. C ons ol

. R ai l C orp. , N o. 98- 364, at6 ( W

. D

. Pa. J u n e 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 ) ; M a y o v . Co n s o l

. Ra i l Co rp . , 9 6

- 6 5 6 , a t9

- 1 0 ( W. D. P a. June 2 3, 19 99 ); In r e C on sol

. R ai l C orp. A

. D .A . L iti g. , N os. 9 8 -16 6 9 , 9 8 -16 7 1 , 9 8 -16 7 2 , an d 9 8 -17 5 9 , at 9 -10 (W

. D

. P a. M ar. 20 i n C om m uni cat i ons W or ker s , 282 F. 3d at 218. I n thatcas e, a uni on fi l ed an E E O C char ge al l egi ng r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on bythe St at e of N e w Je rse y . Id

. a t 2 1 5 . T h e u n io n th e n f iled a tim e lyc o m p lain t, assert i ng associ at i on a l s t a nd i ng , a nda l l e gi ng di s c r i mi na t i on a ga i ns t al l of t he uni on’ s bl ack a nd H i s pani c mem ber s , w i thoutnami ng any i n d i v i d u a l s . I d

. Ab o u ta y e a rl a t e r , a s e p a r a t e c h a p t e ro f th e s a me uni on s ucce s s ful l yi nt ervened i n the or i gi nal act i on, butthe di s tr i ct c o u r td i s mi s s e d i t s c o mp l a i n ta s t i me b a rr e d

. I d

. a t2 1 5

- 1 6

. On ap p ea l, th e c h ap ter argu ed that itco u ld p igg yb ac k o n the u n ion ’s tim e ly c o m p la in t b e c a u se th e u n io n h a d f iled o n b e h a lf

o f a ll i ts m ember s , and that w as funct i onal l y the s ame as a cl as s act i on. I d. a t 2 1 7 . W e d isa g re e d , rea so n in g th a t “a c c e p tan c e o f [ th a t] ar gum entw oul d evi s cer at e the di s t i nct i on betw een a n act i on fi l ed b ya n e n tity b a s e d o n a s s o c ia tio n a l s ta n d in g . . . a n d c la s s a c tio n s ,” w i th “ the at t endant

r equi r em ent

s of clas s cer t i

f i cati ons and the as s oci at ed pr ocedur aldue not i ce and f ai r nes s sa

feguar ds as pr ovi ded by Fed. R

. C i v. P

. R ul e 23

. ” Id. at 21 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he foc us of ourear l ycas es , L us ar di and Lockhar t , w as that i n th e l i mi t e d c o n t e x t o f a c l a s s o r c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , a s i n g l e E E OC char ge al l egi ng cl as s - w i de di s cr i m i nat i on s at i s fi es the exha us t i on r e q u i r e me n tf

o ra l l c l a s s p l a i n t i f

f s b e c a u s e i t a c h i e v e s th e E E OC goal s of n o ti ce and conc i l i at i on. O url at ercas es , W hal en and C o m m u n ica tio n s W o rk e rs, e m p h a siz e d th a t th e sin g le f ili n g ru le is l i m i t ed t o pl ai nt i ffs w ho have unde r gone the cl as s cert i fi cat i on p ro c e ss , b e c a u se th a t p ro c e s s e n su re s n o tice a n d p o ss ib le c o n c ili a tio n o f

e a c h c las s m e m b e r’s c laim s. W e h a v e n o t sq u a re ly addr es s ed w hetherthe s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e appl i es i n i ndi vi dual act i ons aft erdece r t i fi cat i on. 1623, 1999) ; w i th For eman v. C ons ol

. R ai l C orp. , N o. 99- 2804, 2000 W L 2 3 3 4 7 1 , at * 1 -2 (E .D . P a . F e b . 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 ); P a yn e v . C o n so l. R ai l C orp. , N o. 99- 2801, 2000 W L 190229, at* 4 (E

. D

. Pa. Feb. 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 ) ; Wi l l s v . C o n s o l

. R a i l C o r p . , No

. 9 9

- 2 8 1 1 , 2 0 0 0 WL 3 6 5 9 5 4 , * 2 -3 (E .D

. P a . A p r. 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 ); K o b a n v . C o n so l. R a il C orp. , N o. 98- 5872, 1999 W L 672657, at*2 ( E

. D

. Pa. A u g. 13, 1 9 9 9 ).

21 R uehl ar gues thatbeca us e th e M uel l er - B el l as act i on had been c ondi t i onal l ycert i fi ed, R uehl ’ s s ubs equenti ndi vi dual act i on re m a in s in th e “ c o n tex t o f a c las s a c tio n ” a n d th e sin g le f ili n g ru le sh o u ld the ref

o re b e a v ail ab le to h im ev en af ter de ce rt ifi ca ti o n . In ourvi ew , thi s pr opos ed ext ens i on of the s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e does not fol l ow fr om our pr ece dent , and w oul d m ake l i t t l e s ens e underthe fac t s of th is c ase. W e conc l ude thatw hen a c l as s i s dece r t i fi ed beca us e the pl ai nt i ffs ar e not“s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, ” thos e pl ai nt i ffs ar e i n a qual i t at i vel y di ffe r ent pos i t i on than pl ai nt i ffs i n a ce r t i fi ed c las s, a n d o u r re a so n s f o r a p p ly in g th e sin g le f ili n g ru le— in L u sard i, L o ck h art, W h alen , an d C o m m u n icati o n s W o rke rs— are i nappl i cabl e. 2. A ppl i cat i on of t he Si ngl e Fi l i ng R ul e af t er D ece rt i f i cat i on T he di s tr i ctcourtexpl ai ned i n i t s w el l

- r eas oned and e x h a u stiv e o p in io n d e c e rtifyi n g th e M u e ller- B e llas c las s, th a t it s con dit i on a l ce rtific a tio n u n d e r th e A D E A h a d b e e n grant ed b ecause th e re w a s s u f

f ic ie n t ev id e n c e o f

a g e -b a se d d isc rim in a tio n to p ro c e e d w ith n o tic e a n d in itia l d is c o v e ry. M u e l l e r v . C B S , In c ., N o. 99 -1310 , at6 (W

. D

. P a. D ec. 9, 20 02 ) ( A pp . at19 4); see al so S perl i ng v. H off

m an L a-R och e, Inc. , 11 8 F

. R

. D

. 39 2, 40 7 (D

. N

. J. 1988) ( expl ai ni ng thatatth e i ni t i al not i ce s t age, pl ai nt i ffs need onl ym ake “ s ubs t ant i al al l egat i ons ” thattheyw er e col l ect i vel y“the vi ct i m s of a s i ngl e dec i sion, pol i cy , orpl an i nfec t ed by di s cr i m i nat i on. ”)

. T he cour t r emar ked t hat at the “not i ce s t age” the s ta n d a rd f

o r c o n d i t i o n a l c e rt if

ic a tio n is “ c o m p a ra tiv e ly lib e ra l.” (A p p . at 19 4

. ) O n r econs i der at i o n , h ow ever , the di s tr i ctcourtdece r t i fi edA tthe “recon si derat i on ph ase, ” aft er pot enti a l cl ass 17 m ember s have f

i l ed thei rcons ent s t o opti n and af t erther e has been fur therd i s coveryt o s uppor tthe pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons , a di s tr i ct cou rtm ayrevoke con dit i on al cert i fi cat i on i f t he p rop osed class does notm eetFL SA ’ s “s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” r equi r eme nt
. N ei ther F L S A n o rt h e ADE A d e f i n e th e t e r m “ s i mi l a r l ys i tu a t e d , ” b u twe h a v e a p p r o v e d o f

t h e b a l a n c i n g o f

f a c t o r s i n P l u mm e r , 9 3 F

. R. D. 311, and Lusar di , 118 F. R

. D

. 351. See Lockhar t , 879 F. 2d at51 ( appr ovi ng and appl y i ng thes e fa ct or s )

. A r epr es ent at i ve ( butnot exhaus t i ve orm andat ory ) l i s tof r el evantfac t or s i ncl udes w hether th e p lain tiff

s a re e m p lo y e d in th e s a m e c o rp o ra te d e p a rtm e n t, di vi s i on and l ocati on; advanc ed s i m i l arcl ai m s of age di s cr i m i nat i on; s oughts ubs t ant i all ythe s ame for m of r el i ef; and had si m i l ar s al ar i es and ci r cumst ance s of em pl oym ent
. See i d. at 51( ci t i ng Pl um m er , 93 F. R

. D

. at 312) ; L us ar di , 118 F. R

. D

. at358- 59

. P l ai nti ffs m ayal so be f o u n d d iss i m i l ar on t he b asi s of case m anagem enti s s ues , i ncl udi ng i ndi vi dual i zed de fens es . See L usardi , 85 5 F. 2d at 10 74 -75 ( “W hether a cl ass ac tio n is in a p p ro p ri a te
. . . b e c a u s e o f th e d is p a ra te in d iv id u a l d e f e n s e s . . . [i s ] entrus t ed t o t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ound di s cr et i on. ”)

. U nderthe A D E A , empl oy er s m aydefe nd age di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s on the g ro u n d th a t th e d isp a ra te tr e a tm e n t w a s b a se d o n “ re a so n a b le fac t or s otherthan age , ” 29 U

. S. C

. § 623( f) ( 1) , s uch as t erm i nat i on forgood caus e, l ack of a b o n a fide oc cupat i onal qual i fi cat i on, b u sin e ss n e c e ss ity , se n io rity , th e im p lica tio n s o f a b o n a f id e b e n e f it p lan, an d w aive r, M u ell er, N o . 9 9 -13 1 0 , at 9 (A p p . at 19 7

. ). 22 the M uel l er - B el l as cl ass, appl y i ng the fa ct or s s etouti n Pl um m er v. G ener al E l ectr i c C o. , 9 3 F

. R

. D

. 311 ( E

. D

. Pa. 1981) , and L usardi , 11 8 F. R

. D

. 35 1 ( D

. N

. J. 19 87 ). B ased on t hese factor s, 17 the co urtcon cl ud ed thatthe clas s m em bers w ere not“si m ilarly s i tuat ed”: P lain tiff s a r e s u g g e stin g . . . tha t w e c o n tin u e to “s l i ce a nd di ce” a gr oup of nea rl y1, 500 t erm i nat ed empl oy e e s u n t i l we f

i n d two o rth r e e who a r e n ot h o p e les sly d isp a ra te in tim e , loc a tio n , m a n a g e m e n t, w ho have no i nt er nal con fl icts regar di ng s u p e r v is i o n , a n d

wh o a r e s u b

j e c tt o o n l

y o n e o rtwo23 gen eral ized defenses

. . . . I decl ine t o acc ept Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s ugges t i on that I r es ol ve thei rfac tual d is p a ri ty p ro b le m s f

o r t h e m . . . . M u e lle r, N o . 9 9 -1 3 1 0 , a t 5 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ) (A p p . a t 2 4 7 .) T hese reasons for decert i fi cat i on stronglycou n sel against appl i cat i on of the s i ngl e fi l i ng rul e i n R uehl ’ s i ndi vi dual act i o n. Fi r s t , and m o s ti m por t ant l y , pl ai nt i ffs w hos e i ndi vi dual c la im s w e re “ h o p e le s s ly d is p a ra te in tim e , lo c a tio n , m a n a g e m e n t,” w i th “i nt ernal con f

l i c t s r e g a r d i n g s u p e rvi s i on, ” “s ubj ectt o onl yone ortw o gener al i zed defe ns es , ” ar e notdi ffe r entthan the i ndi vi dual p lai n ti ff s in T o ll iver o r W h alen b yv irtue of the fa ct th at th eyw ere once mem ber s of a c ondi t i onal l ycert i fi ed cl as s . S ee W hal en, 56 F. 3d at507. C ondi t i onal cert i fi cat i on of t he M uel l er - B el l as act i on, a s w e h a v e e x p la in e d , onl y me a n tth a tth e r e wer e a l l ega t i on s of cl as s - w i de di s cr i m i nat i on. W hen, at the r econs i der at i on phas e, the fact s of the case cam e t o l i gh t , the court determ i ned that the clas s m ember s w er e nots i m i l arenough t o pr ocee d w i th thei rcl as s - w i de c la im s . S ec o n d , w e b eli ev e d issi m il arityfru str ates the E E O C ’s goal s of not i ce a nd conc il ia t i on— w e s t and byourdi s agr eement w i th T ol l i ver in this r egar d. N ot i ce i s i nt ended t o i nform an e m p lo y e r th a t “a c o m p lain t h a s b e e n lo d g e d a g a in st h im and gi ves h im th e o p p o rt u n ity to ta k e re m e d ia l ac tio n .” B ih le r v . S in g e r C o ., 7 1 0 F

. 2 d 9 6 , 9 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I n thi s ca se, the onl yas pectof the M uel l erand B el l as char ges appl i c a b l e t o Rue h l was th e c l a s s - wi d e a l l e g a t i o n th a tVi a com perpetr at ed a “ patt ern and s cheme of sy stem at i c di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tol derw or ker s . ” ( A pp. at151- 54. ) Even as s um i ng a patt ern and s cheme, w e cannot fai r l y pr es um e that V iaco m w as not i fi ed o f

a n yth i n g b u tth e c l a s s - wi d e c l a i ms , whi c h th e d i s tr i ct courtdet erm i ned w ere overw hel m ed bythe pl ai nt i ffs ’ i ndi vi dual di ffe r ence s . B ythe t i m e R uehl fi l ed hi s cons entt o opt i n t o the M uel l er - B el l as act i on— and had not i fi ed any one of hi s i ndi vi dual c la im

— it w a s to o la te f o r V ia c o m to ta k e re m e d ia l a c tio n . N ordoes R uehl pr ovi de anyr eas on t o as s um e that conci l i at ion o f R uehl ’ s i ndi vi dual cl ai m s w oul d have be en fut i l e.S ee al s o A r m s tr ong v. M art i n M ar i ett a C orp. , 138 F. 3d 18 1374, 1392 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( t ol l i ng the E E O C char ge- fi l i ng per i od dur i ng the pe n dencyof pl ai nt i ffs ’ part i ci pat i on i n A D E A col l ect i ve act i ons ) ; M cD onal d v. Sec’ yof H eal th & H um an Servs . , 834 F. 2d 1085, 1092 ( 1s tC i r . 1987) ( hol di ng that the pr i nci pl es of A m . Pi pe & C ons tr . C o. v. U t ah, 414 U

. S. 538 ( 1974) , perm i t t i ng t ol l i ng of the t i m e t o fi l e a c om pl ai ntdur i ng the pende ncyof a c l as s act i on, are “general l yapp l i cable” t o ad m i nis trat i ve l i m i t at i on s peri od s, so that aft er a cl ass act i on w as decert i fi ed o n a p p e a l, the clas s m ember s coul d “go for w ar d fr om the poi ntw her e theyhad l eftoff d u rin g p e n d e n c yo f

th e c las s a c tio n ” a n d e x h a u st th e ir admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es ) ; Sharpe v. A m . E xpr es s C o. , 689 F. Supp. 294, 300 ( S. D

. N

. Y

. 1988) ( “A ppl y i ng the t ol l i ng rul e t o the fi l i ng o f a d m in istra tiv e c laim s w ill h a v e th e sa m e sa lu tar y e f f e c t a s e x ists forthe fi l i ng of l aw s ui t s . I n both cas es, t ol l i ng the s t atut e of lim itatio n s d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f a c las s a c tio n w ill a v o id e n c o u ra g in g a ll p u tativ e c las s m e m b e rs to f ile s e p a ra te c laim s w ith 24 T he EE O C ’s ro l e underthe A D E A i s “t o el i m i nat e the d iscri m inato ryp rac ti ce o r p rac ti ce s all eg ed , an d to ef fe ct vo lun tary compl i ance . . . thr ough i nform al m ethods of conc i l i at i on, con ference, and persuasi on . ” S ee 29 U

. S

. C

. § 626 (b) . F ru it l ess negot i at i on of cl as s - w i de cl ai m s t el l s us nothi ng aboutthe pr os pect s forconci l i at ion of i ndi vi dual cl ai m s thati nvol ve p o te n tia lly d if

f e re n t c o n d u c t a n d d if

f e re n t d e f e n s e s . T hi r d, and f

inal l y , w e ar e unmoved byR uehl ’ s pr edi ct i on th a t f a ilu re to a p p lyth e sin g le f ili n g ru le a f

ter d e c e rtific a tio n w ill d e ter p lain tiff

s fr o m jo in in g a c las s, f o r f e a r th a t th e ir tim e to f

ile a c h a r g e w ill r u n o u t w h ile c e rt if ic a tio n is p e n d in g . A s tr ai ght forw ar d ext ens i o n o f ourhol di ng i n Sper l i ng v. H offmann- L a R oche, I nc. , 24 F. 3d 463 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4) , al l evi at es thi s pr obl em byperm i t t i ng t ol l i ng of the cha r ge fi l i ng per i od, aft er a n A D E A p lain tiff

h a s o p ted in to a c o llec tiv e a c tio n , u n til d e c e rtific a tio n . S e e id . at 4 6 8 (“ O u r h o ld in g th a t A D E A ’s s tatu te of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed for el i gi bl e cl as s m ember s by the i n it ia l fi l i ng of a r epr es ent at i ve compl ai nt , as l ong as the r epr es en t at i ve n a tu re o f

th e a c tio n is c lea r o n th e c o m p lain t’s f a c e , is for es hadow ed byour opi ni on i n L us ar di , 855 F. 2d 1062”)

. H er e, 18the E E O C

. . . . ”). O ur hol di ng i s l i m i t ed t o a decert i fi ed col l ect i ve ac t i on. 19 W e expr es s no opi ni on aboutappl i cat i on of the rul e i n the cont ext of a de cert i fi ed, R ul e 23 cl as s act i on. 25 how ever , even i f w e t ol l ed R uehl ’ s char ge fi l i ng per i od dur i ng the pendenc yof the M uel l er - B el l as act i on, hi s char ge w o ul d s t i l l be u n t i m e l y. Fort hes e r eas ons , w e hol d thatthe si n g le fi l i ng rul e i s not a v a ilab le to f

o rm e r m e m b e rs o f

a c o llec tiv e a c ti o n th a t is d ec erti fied b ec au se the p lai n ti ff s are n o t “s im il arly situ ated

. ” It 19 i s ther efor e notappl i cabl e i n R uehl ’ s cas e. I I I . C oncl usi on R uehl ’s E E O C char ge w as fi l ed overfi ve y ear s t oo l at e. B e c a u se h e w a s a w a re o f a f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r his c laim in tim e to f

ile a cha r ge, and V i acom’ s al l egedl ym i s l eadi ng behavi ori n pr ocur i ng a n in v a lid w a iv e r d id n o t ca u s e h is late f ili n g , R u e h l is in e lig ib le forequi t abl e t ol l i ng. I n addi t i on, beca us e the M uel l er - B el l as act i on w as dece r t i fi ed on gr ounds of di s s i m i l ari ty , he ca nnot p ig g yb a c k o n a n y o n e e lse ’s tim e ly f iled c h a rg e . W ith o u t eq u itab le to lli n g o r p ig g yb a c k in g , R u e h l f a ils to sa tisf

y th e A D E A ’s tim e ly exhaus t i on r equi r ement
. W e w i l l ther efor e r ever s e the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der and r emand f or entry of s um m aryj udgm enti n favor o f Vi a c o m.