### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 8, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 03- 1340 8 D. C. Docket N o. 02-00837-CV-T -17-MSS ANTHONYW . BOST, ind ivi dua lly

and o n be ha lf of oth er s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d, RON AL D C LAUS NI TZ ER , ind ivi dua lly

and o n be ha lf of ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed , et al ., P la int if fs -Appe llants , ve rs us FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, De fendant-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida (J un e 8, 200 4) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PRY OR, Circuit Judge: T he m ai n is sue in thi s a

ppe al is w he the r anE E O C i ntake que sti onna ir e an d af fi da vit sa tis fy the r equir em en ts o f anE E O C c harg e w he n th es e doc um en ts s ta te that the y are f or “pr e- ch ar ge f

ili ng c ouns el ing , ” the E E O C d oe s no t tre at the m a s a ch ar ge , and the e m

plo y ee late r fi le s ati m el y c harg e. W e co nc lud e, in thi s circum stance, that the intake quest ionn aire and affidavit do no t constitu te an E E O C c harg e be ca

use the se f

orm s w oul d no t have sug ge ste d to ar ea sona ble pe rs on tha t the e m

plo y ee w ho c om

ple te d th em

ha d y et m an if es te d an in te nt t o activate the adm inistrative process. A ccordingly , w e af firm the j udgm ent entered against AnthonyBost whose com plaint was prem ature, because it w as filed af ter his int ake question naire and af fidavit but b efore his form al charge. W e also aff irm the j udgm en t e nte re d a ga ins t the e m plo y ee s ona ll oth er

iss ue s r ai se d inthi s ap pe al . I. BACKG ROUND T he m ult ipl e cate gor ie s of

pla int if fs and the ir

r ep eate d f

or ay s in to l iti ga tio n com plicate this appeal. T he plaintiffs are num erous form er and current em ploy ees of the de fe ndant, som e of

w hom f ile d f orm al E E O C c harg es and o the rs w ho d id not, and several of the e m ploy ees w ere nam ed plaintiffs to an earlier lawsuit that was di sm is se d a ndaffi rm edon ap pe al . To un de rs ta ndth e is su es in th is ap pe al , a3

brief overviewof the cate gories of em ploy ees and the history

of their earlier l a w s u i tan dth i s l i t i g a t i o n i s n e c e s s a ry. A . T he P lai nti ffs F orm er and c ur re nt e m plo y ee s of

F ed er al E xpr es s C or

por at ion( Fe dE x) sued FedEx and alleged violations of the A ge Discr im ination in Em ploym ent Act (A DE A) , 29 U .S .C. sections 62 1-634, and the Florida Civil Rights Ac t (FCR A) , Fla. Stat. Ann. sections 76 0.01-760.11. T heir putative class action alleged that fr om late 199 4 th ro ugh the pr es en t, F ed E x e nga ge d inapa tte rnand p ra ct ic e of dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t ol de r co ur ie rs . F ive of the nam ed

pla int if fs , Ro na ld Cl au sni tz er , K athy

Cr eam er , W ill iam

K ro llm an , G er al d F re em an , and V inc en t Mac ci a, were p la in ti ffs in an earl ie r cas e, Free m an , et al . v. Fed eral Exp res s C or p., Ci v, 99- 2466 -T -3 0B , that w as dis m iss ed by the dis tr ic t c ourt and a ff

irm ed by thi s Co urt. T he pla int if

fs in Fr ee m anf

ile d atot al of

se ve n c harg es of

dis cr im inatio n ag ai ns t Fe dEx , beg in ni ng on Ju ly 8, 19 96 , un ti l Ap ril 15 , 19 98 . The EEOC dis m iss ed a ll of the c harg es and i ssu ed

r igh t- to- sue le tte rs be tw ee n June 22, 199 9, an d S ep te m

be r 15 , 19 99 . Fi ve oth er

nam ed pla int if fs , Mary A nne F ro st, E rv is G re gor y , Joh n K ue nni ng, D en ny

Ma j or s, and P hy lli s N el son, did not f ile any c harg e w iththe E E O C. T he se e m

plo y ee s, a m ong oth er s, f

ir st f ile d an am en de d c om

pla int in the4

Free m an li ti ga ti on whi le th e d is m is sa l o f th atsu itwas p en di ng be fo re t hi s C ou rt. A nth ony Bo st a lso w as a m ong tho se w ho f ile d an am en de d c om

pla int in Free m an whi le th atcas e was on ap pe al , bu t Bo st , un li ke th e o th ers , fil edan EEOC ch ar ge . B ost

f ir st f ile d an in take que sti onna ir e an d a ff idavit w iththe E E O C o n D ec em be r 18, 200 1, and the n f

ile d af orm al c harg e w iththe E E O C o n June 5, 20 02 . In h is res po ns es to th e in ta ke qu es ti on na ire , Bos t al le ge d t ha t Fe dEx dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m and o the r old er

c our ie rs be ca

use of the ir a ge . B ost included h is full nam e, address, and telepho ne num ber, as w ell as the nam e, ad dr es s, and t el ep hone num be r of F ed E x. B ost

sig ne d th e que sti onna ir e on D ec em be r 18, 200 1. B ost

a tta ch ed asix -p ag e af

fi da vit a lle gin g in stanc es of dis cr im inatio n and h ar as sm en t. O n th e six th p ag e of the a ff idavit , Bo st s ign ed

his na m e unde r oa th i n th e pr es en ce of anot ar y . B ost f ile d af orm al c harg e of di sc riminat io n am on th aft er t he fil in g o f th is pu ta ti ve cla ss act io n. Th e EEOC is su edBo st a no ti ce o f ri gh t t o s ue on Aug us t 2 8, 2 00 2. Four other curre nt em

ploy ees, Jam es Natalina, K enny Bosley , S tephen Costianes, and Curlie Chester , c onsentedto join this suit as party plaintiffs after the f ili ng o f the c om

pla int . B ec au se the y

did not pr ovi de the dis tr ic t c ourt w ith pr oof of f ili ng E E O C c harg es , non e of the se pla int if

fs pr es um ab ly

f ile d ac harg e wit h t he EEOC.5 B . Proc ed

ural H istory T he F re em anpla int if

fs f ir st f ile d su it, pr o se , a ga ins t F ed E x onO ct obe r 26, 1999 . The district court dism issed the com plaint withou t prej udice on Septem ber 25, 200 0, and i nstru ct ed

the pla int if

fs to am en d th ei r co m

pla int w ith in 2 0 day s or by O ct obe r 23, 200 0. T he F re em anpla int if fs e le ct ed to fi le anot ic e of interlocutory

appeal on October 24, 2000 , and an am ended noti ce of interlocutory ap pe al on N ove m

be r 13, 200 0. O n January 14, 200 2, thi s C ourt c onc lud ed that the dism issal of the com

plaint was final beca

use an am ended com

plaint had n ot been fi le d w ith in the r equir ed

ti m e. T his Co urt a lso iss ue d an or de r sum m ar ily af fi rm ing the dis m iss al of

the F re em ansui t. S ee F re em anv. F ed er al E xpr es s Corp., 31 Fed. Appx. 929 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). T he district court then iss ued an adm inistrative order on March 28, 2002, at the r equest of FedE x, explaining th at its S ep te m

be r 25, 200 0, or de r of

dis m iss al be cam e fi na l onO ct obe r 23, 200 0, be cau se th e Fre em an pl ai nt iff s d idno t fi le an am en de d c om pl ai nt by tha t d at e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that a ll fi lin gs a ft er

O ct obe r 23, 200 0, inc lud ing the am en de d c om

pl ai nt of B os t an d o th ers , were v oi d. O n M ay 9, 200 2, the pla int if

fs in thi s a

ppe al f ile d ac om

pla int a ga ins t Fed Ex an d, as in Free m an , all eg edvi ol at io ns of t he ADEA andth e FCRA. On Jul y 29, 200 2, F ed E x f

ile d am oti on t o di sm iss w ithpr ej udi ce and atta ch ed a6

de cl arat io n wi th ni ne ex hi bi ts to th is m ot io n. Th e em pl oyees re sp on de d wi th two m em or an daof

lawand num er ous ex hib its . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on to d ism iss on the gr ound s th at the F re em anpla int if

fs ' c om pla int s w er e barr ed

by re s j udi cata , and the Bo st c om pla int w as pr em at

ur e be ca use it w as f ile d be fo re the E E O C c harg e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso dis m iss ed the state lawc la im s w ith pr ej udi ce a s to a ll pla int if fs . T he e m

plo y ee s f ile d am oti on t o a lte r or

a m en d th e j udgm en t onMarc h 4, 200 2, and a sup ple m en ta l m oti on t o a lte r or a m en d on Marc h 24 , 200 3. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d bo th m oti ons on M ay 5, 200 3. T he em plo y ee s f ile d athi rd

m oti on t o a lte r or

a m en d th e May

200 3 or de r, and the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso de nie d th at m oti on. T he e m

plo y ee s no wappe al . II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW Although the district court granted a m otion to dism iss for failure to state a cl ai m und er F ed er al Ru le of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e 12( b) (6 ), both F ed E x and the em ploy ees filed num erous declarations and exhibi ts in the dis trict court in suppo rt of the ir arg um en ts. B ec au se the part ie s and the c ourt r el ie d ondoc um en ts o uts ide the ple ad ing s, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as r equir ed to tr eat the m oti on t o di sm iss a s a m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. S ee F ed . R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ; P ro pe rty Mana ge m en t & Investm ents, Inc. v. L ew is, 752 F.2d 599, 604 (11th Cir. 1985 ) (“ once the court de ci de s to a cc ep t m atte rs out sid e the ple ad ing , it m ust c onve rt the m oti on t o7

dism iss into one for sum

m ary j udgm ent”). We r e v i e wan o r d e r

g r a n t i n g s u mmary j u d g me n td e n o v o , ap p l yi n g th e s a me st an da rd s as th e d is tri ctco ur t. See Dam on v. Fl em in g S up erm ark et s o f Fl a., In c., 196 F. 3d 1 354, 135 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s on ly

appr opr ia te w he n “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f

ac t and . . . the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ; se e Ce lot ex Co rp v. Catr ett, 477 U . S. 317 , 322 , 106 S . Ct . 254 8, 255 2 ( 1986 ). Age nui ne iss ue of m aterial f act exists “ if the j ury

could return a verdict for the non-m ovin g party .” D a mo n , 1 9 6 F . 3 da t1 3 5 8 ( qu o t i n g Un i t e dS t a t e s v . F o u r P a r c e l s o f

R e a l P r o p e rt y, 94 1 F .2d14 28 , 14 37 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (en ba nc )). In ex am in in g t he reco rd , we view the evidence in the light m ost favorable to the non -m ovin g party . See id. at 1358 . W e re vie wf

or abuse of dis cr et ionthe de nia l of

the e m plo y ee s’ m oti on t o al te r or a m en d th e j udgm en t, w hic h pe rt ai ne d to the dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce of the cl ai m s br ough t un de r state law . S ee A m . H om e A ssuranc e Co . v. G le nn E ste ss & A sso c. , I nc . , 763 F . 2d 1 237, 123 8- 39 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( ci tin g F uture s T ra din g Com m 'n v. Am . C omm oditi es Gr oup, 753 F.2d 862 , 866 (11th Cir. 1984); Mc Carthy

v. Ma son, 714 F . 2d 2 34, 237 ( 2d C ir . 198 3) ; W ee m s v. Mc Cl oud, 619 F. 2d 10 81, 1098 (5th Cir. 1980 )).8 III. D ISCU SSION Our m ain focus is on th e plaintiffs’ claim s under the AD EA . The nam ed pla int if fs are div ide d in to tw o se parate c at eg or ie s r eg ar din g th ei r A D E Ac la im s: (1 ) tho se w ho b as e the ir

c la im s onac harg e fi le d by Bo st ( the Bo st p la int if

fs ); and (2) those who base their cla im s on charges filed by the plaintiffs in the Freem an lit igatio n ( the F re em anpla int if fs ). W e fi rs t a ddr es s th e A D E Ac la im s of the Bo st pl ai nt iff s, an d we n ex t ad dr es s t he ADEA clai m s o f th e Fre em an pl ai nt iff s. Fi na ll y , we add res s t he pl ai nt iff s’ st at e la w cla im s. A. AD EA Cla ims T he A D E A r equir es that an in div idu al e xhaust a va ila ble a dm ini str at ive rem edies by

filing a charge of unlaw ful discrim ination with the E EO C before fi lin g alaw sui t. S ee 29 U . S. C. § 62 6( d) (2 ); Ri cc ar d v. P ru de nti al I ns. Co . , 307 F. 3d 12 77, 1291 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). For a charge to be tim ely

in Florida, a

defer ral state , it m ust be f ile d no t m or e than 30 0 day s a ft er the a lle ge d un law fu l em plo ym en t pr ac tic e oc curr ed . S ee id. ; M ay nard v. P ne um at ic P ro ds. Co rp . , 256 F . 3 d1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Th e e mp l o ye e mu s tth e n wa i ta tl e a s t6 0 d a ys be fo re f ili ng a c ivi l a ct ion . S ee G ray son v. K Mart Co rp . , 79 F . 3d 1 086, 110 0 (1 1thCi r. 199 6) ( ane m

plo y ee m ay

sue be fo re the E E O C i ssu es ar igh t- to- sue le tte r unde r the A D E A ); se e al so 2 9 U . S. C. § 62 6( d) . I f the E E O C i ssu es the9

e mp l o ye e ar i g h t - t o - s u e l e t t e r , th e e mp l o ye e mu s tf i l e ac o mp l a i n twi t h i n 9 0 d a ys of the r ec ei pt o f the r igh t- to- sue le tte r. S ee S an tin i v. Cl ev el an d C lin ic F la . , 232 F. 3d 82 3, 825 (11th Cir. 2000). B e s i d e s b e i n g t i me l y, c h a r g e s o f a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n mu s t , a tami n i mu m,

“ be in w ri tin g and . . . nam e the pr ospe ct ive r es pond en t and . . . ge ne ra lly a lle ge the dis cr im inator

y a ct (s ). ” 29 C . F. R. § 16 26. 6. Ac harg e “ shou ld c ont ai n” c er ta in oth er inf orm at ion , inc lud ing the f

ull nam e, a ddr es s, and t el ep hone num be r of the ch ar gin g party , f

ull nam e an d a ddr es s of

the e m plo y er , ac le ar

and c onc ise state m en t of

the a lle ge d un law fu l di sc ri m inatio n in cl udi ng p er tin en t date s, and the approxim ate num

ber of em ploy ees. See 29 C.F .R. § 1226 .8(a )(1)- (5). E ven if a charge does not contain th e suggested in form ation, however , the E EO C considers the charge suffic ient when the E EO C re ceives fr om the charging party

“ a w ritten state m en t or

inf orm at ionr ed

uc ed to w ri tin g . . . that c onf

orm s to the r equir em en ts of § 1 626. 6. ” 29 C . F. R. § 16 26. 8( b) ; C lark v. Co at s & Cl ar

k, I nc . , 865 F . 2d 1 237, 1240 -4 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) . Ac harg e m ay be a m en de d to c ur e te ch nic al de fe ct s, to clarify or am plify allegations, or to allege additional un lawf ul acts. S ee 29 C. F. R. § 1 62 6( c). The f iling of a c harge of discrim ination with the E EO C initiates “ an int eg rate d, m

ult i- ste p e nf

or ce m en t pr oc ed

ur e” that e nable s th e E E O C t o de te ct and10

rem ed y va rio us di sc riminat ory

em pl oym en t p ract ic es . E.E .O.C. v. Sh el l Oi l Co ., 466 U . S. 54, 62, 104 S . Ct . 162 1, 162 7 ( 1984 ). T his pr oc es s in cl ude s th e fo llo w ing ste ps: ( 1) pr om pt n oti ce f

ro m the E E O C t o th e em

plo y er that a c harg e ha s be enf

ile d; and ( 2) inv es tig at ionof the c harg e by

the E E O C. S ee S he ll O il Co . , 466 U . S. a t 63 , 104 S . Ct . a t 16 28. T he E E O C a ssum es the bur de n of

“ pr om pt ly not ify[in g] th e res po nd en t t ha t a c ha rg e h as be en fil ed .” 29 C.F.R. § 1626 . 11. O rd inari ly

e ve ry e m plo y ee w ho i nte nds to s ue f or a ge dis cr im inatio n m

ust fi rs t f ile an a dm ini str at ive c harg e of dis cr im inatio n w iththe E E O C. U nde r the

“ pigg y backing rule,” a putativ e plaintiff w ho has no t filed an E EO C charge, however, m ay

rely upon the claim

of a plaintiff who has filed a tim ely charge. See H ipp v. L ibe rty

N at . L if e In s. Co . , 252 F . 3d 1 208, 121 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ; G ray son, 79 F . 3d at 11 01; Ca llo w ay v. P ar tne rs N at ' l H ea lthP lans, 986 F . 2d 4 46, 450 ( 11th Ci r. 199 3) . T he pig gy

ba ck ing r ule appl ie s to A D E Ac as es . S ee G ray son, 79 F . 3d at 110 1. Apla int if

f m ay pig gy ba ck on anothe r pla int if

f' s c harg e pr ovi de d “ (1 ) the re lie d up on c harg e is n ot i nva lid , and ( 2) the ind ivi dua l c la im s of the f ili ng and n o n - f i l i n g p l a i n t i f

f ar i s e o u to f

s i mi l a r d i s c r i mi n a t o ry t r e a t me n ti n th e s a me t i me fram e. ” Id. at 1101-02 (quoting Calloway , 986 F. 2d at 450 ).11 1. T he Bost Plaintiffs Bo st and e igh t no n- fi lin g e m plo y ee s, Cl au sni tz er , F re em an , K ue nni ng, Maj ors, N atalina, Bosley , C ostianes, and Chester, base their A DE A c laim s on an E E O C c harg e fi le d by

Bo st. T he Bo st p la int if

fs e ith er are c ur re nt e m plo y ee s, a s is Bost, or w ere term inated after the filing of Bost’s c harge of discrim ination . If Bo st’ s c harg e of

dis cr im inatio n w as pr em at ur e, the oth er

pla int if fs c an not pi gg y ba ckon hi s ch arg e. The district court dism issed the AD EAclaim s of the Bost plainti ffs as pr em at ur e be ca use the sui t w as f

ile d onMay

9, 200 2, ne ar ly

am onth be fo re Bo st filed his form al E EO C charge on Jun e 5, 2002 . The B ost plain tiffs contend that Bo st’ s E E O C c harg e w as f ile d onD ec em

be r 18, 200 1, w he n B ost

f ile d an in take que sti onna ir e an d a ff

idavit . T he Bo st p la int if

fs arg ue that B ost ’ s c harg e w as not pr em at ur e be ca use he f ile d th e int ak e que sti onna ir e an d a ff idavit f ive m onths be fo re the c om

m en ce m en t of

thi s su it. Ine va luatin g th e ar gum en t of the Bo st p la int if

fs , w e ar e gui de d by

thr ee of our precedents. This Court first considered w hether an intake question naire co nst itu te s an E E O C c harg e in C lark v. Co at s & Cl ar

k, I nc . , 865 F . 2d 1 237 (1 1th Ci r. 198 9) . I n C lark , the pla int if f co nta ct ed

the E E O C a ft er

his te rminatio n and inquir ed about the appr opr ia te pr oc ed

ur es f or f ili ng a c harg e of

dis cr im inatio n. I d.12

at 123 9. T he E E O C s en t C lark an in take que sti onna ir e that he c om ple te d and re tur ne d 15 2 day s a ft er

his te rm inatio n. I d. A ft er r ec ei vin g th e que sti onna ir e, the EE OC sent a notice of a char ge of discrim ination to his em ploy er. Id. Clar

k then sig ne d af orm al c harg e pr ep ar ed

by the E E O C 2 02 d ay s a ft er his te rm inatio n. I d. at 1239-40 . The e m

ploy er argued that because the form al charge wa s not filed within the required 180 day s, Clark’ s claim s wer e barr ed. Id. at 1240 . Clark ar gue d, how ev er , that hi s in take que sti onna ir e sa tis fi ed the f ili ng r equir em en t of 29 U.S.C. § 6 26 (d )(1 ). Id. This Court agree d with Clark and held th at his inform al intake questio nnaire

“ fu lf ill ed a ll of the obj ec tiv es de sir ed

by Co ngr es s” be ca

use it w as “ in wri tin g and de sc ri be d th e ac tio n w hic h C lark be lie ve d to be dis cr im inator y . ” I d. a t 12 41. T his Co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t t he EEOC trea te d C la rk ’s in ta ke qu es ti on na ire as a ch arg e. T he E E O C n oti fi ed

the de fe ndant o f the a lle ge d di sc ri m inatio n a ft er r ec ei pt o f the in ta ke qu es ti on na ire , bu t b efo re co m pl et io n o f th e fo rm al ch arg e. Id . at 1 24 0- 41 . T his Co urt ne xt a ddr es se d w he the r anint ak e que sti onna ir e se rv ed a s a ch ar ge in Pi

j ne nbur g v. W es t G eo rg iaH ea lthS y ste m s, I nc . , 255 F . 3d 1 304 (1 1th Ci r. 20 01 ). Pijn en bu rg su edhe r em pl oyer forsex di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on . Id . a t 13 05. S he c om

ple te d an “ In te rv ie wQ ue sti ons fo r E m plo ym en t Discr im ination ” form

and filed it with the E EO C w ithin 180 day s of the alleged13

di sc riminat io n. Id . The fo rm was n ot swo rn . Id. T his Co urt he ld tha t “ as age ne ra l m atte r anint ak e que sti onna ir e is n ot int en de d to f

unc tio n a s ac harg e” f

or pur pose s of the statut e of

li m itatio ns, and this Court concluded th at Pij nenburg’s questionn aire w as not an exception to that ge ne ra l r ule . I d. a t 13 07. T his Co urt r ea sone d th at , unl ike the f ili ng o f the que sti onna ir e, ac harg e, in ad dit ionto tr igg er ing the r unni ng o f the statut e of lim itations , ser

ves the following two functions : (1) notification to the em ploy er that a dis cr im inatio n c harg e ha s be enf ile d w iththe E E O C; and ( 2) ini tiatio n of the EE OC investig ation of the com plaint. Id. at 1306. T he Pij nenburg cou rt concluded th at the filing of Pij nenburg’s intake questionn aire did not satisfy either of the se tw o f

unc tio ns, and the tr eatm en t of he r que sti onna ir e as ac harg e w oul d ha ve th wart edth es e two ob jecti ve s. Id . Most recently , this Court held that a verified intake questionn aire that inc lud ed the ba sic inf

orm at ionsug ge ste d by

the E E O C m ay

c onst itu te ac harg e fo r pur pose s of the statut e of

li m itatio ns “ w he n th e ci rc um stanc es of the c as e w oul d co nvi nc e a re as ona

ble pe rs on tha t the c harg ing party m an if es te d he r int en t t o ac tiv at e the a dm ini str at ive pr oc es s. ” W ilk er son v. G ri nne ll Co rp . , 270 F . 3d 1 314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2001). Those exce ption al circ um stances we re pre sent in that ap pe al . T his Co urt c au tio ne d, how ev er , that i t w oul d “ not tr eat i ntake14

qu es ti on na ire s wi ll y -n il ly as ch arg es .” Id . at 1 32 0. In holdin g that the intake qu estionn aire satisfied the r equirem ents of an E E O C c harg e, the W ilk er son Co urt c onsi de re d th e fo llo w ing thr ee f ac tor s: ( 1) the co m m uni catio n be tw ee n th e pla int if f an d th e E E O C; ( 2) the E E O C i ntake questio nnaire form

itself; and (3) the re spon se by the EE OC to the com

pleted que sti onna ir e. I d. a t 13 20- 21. A s to the f ir st f ac tor , W ilk er son co nta ct ed the E E O C m ult ipl e tim es r eg ar din g he r ch ar ge , and s he r ec ei ve d m isl ea din g inf orm at ionf

ro m the E E O C. I d. a t 13 20. S ec ond, the que sti onna ir e fo rm it se lf state d th at

it c oul d be ac harg e. I d. a t 13 20- 21. F ina lly , a ft er som e pr oddi ng b y the plaintiff, the E EO C treated her questionn aire a s a charge and issu ed a belated notice of the charge to her e m ploy er. Id. at 1321. In those exceptional ci rc um stanc es , w e he ld tha t W ilk er son’ s in take que sti onna ir e sa tis fi ed the req ui rem en ts of a ch arg e, whi ch all owe d Wil ke rs on to pro ceed wit h h er co m pl ai nt . Id . T he f

ac ts o f thi s c as e dif

fe r sig nif ic an tly f ro m the se e ar lie r ca se s. U nli ke in Cl ar k, the E E O C d id n ot tre at Bo st’ s in take que sti onna ir e as ac harg e of dis cr im inatio n. T he re is no e vid en ce in the r ec or d th at the E E O C d id anythi ng i n re spon se to Bo st’ s in take que sti onna ir e an d a ff idavit . T he E E O C d id n ot s en d a notice of a char ge to FedEx, as it did in Clark. I nstead, the E EO C sent notice of a15

ch ar ge of dis cr im inatio n on ly

a ft er Bo st f ile d hi s f orm al c harg e in June 200 2. T he record r eveals no evidence that the EE OC considered the questi onnaire to be a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n. T his c as e la ck s th e ex ce pti ona l c ir cum stanc es r el ie d onby the W ilk er son Court in conclud ing th at the intake questio nnaire in that case w as a char ge. Ther e is n o e vid en ce that B ost

m an if es te d an in te nt t o a ct ivate the a dm ini str at ive pr oc es s by f ili ng h is i ntake que sti onna ir e w iththe E E O C, a s W ilk er son re qui re d. T he undi sput ed

e vid en ce ins te ad

sho w s th e oppo sit e; Bo st c le ar ly und er sto od tha t the intake questio nnaire w as not a charge bec ause he later filed a tim ely charge. If Bo st b el ie ve d th at

he ha d f ile d ac harg e of

dis cr im inatio n w he n he f ile d th e int ak e que sti onna ir e, he w oul d no t have f ile d an a ddi tio na l t im el y

c harg e of dis cr im inatio n. B ost ’ s c ondu ct sho w s th at

he did not int en d to a ct ivate the adm ini str at ive pr oc es s un til he f ile d hi s f orm al c harg e of

dis cr im inatio n. U nli ke the se ri es of

state m en ts m ad e by

the E E O C t o th e pla int if f in W ilk er son, the re is no e vid en ce of any m isl ea din g c om

m uni catio n be tw ee n B ost an d th e E E O C. B ost

ha s no t a lle ge d th at

he c ont ac te d th e E E O C t o in qui re about his a lle ge d c harg e nor

that the E E O C i nstru ct ed him in an y w ay about his int ak e que sti onna ir e. T he E E O C n oti fi ed F ed E x of Bo st’ s c harg e an d th eniss ue d B ost a right-to-sue letter only

after Bost filed his form al charge.16

Fi na ll y , th e que st io nn ai re fo rm it se lf d idno t s ug ge st th atitwas ach arg e. The P rivacy

Ac t Statem ent at the end of the intake questio nnaire instead stated that the que sti onna ir e w as not the e qui va le nt o f a ch ar ge of dis cr im inatio n. T he Privacy Statem ent described the form as a m eans to decide whether the EE OC has j ur isd ic tio n ov er

“pot en tia l c harg es ” an d to pr ovi de “pr e- ch ar ge f ili ng co unse lin g. ” T he se de sc ri pti ons sugg es t t o ar ea sona ble r ea de r that the questio nnaire w as not a charge. Thus, B ost’s intake questionn aire did not satisfy the requirem ents of a ch ar ge of dis cr im inatio n. W e re ite rate that “ anint ak e que sti onna ir e is n ot int en de d to f

unc tio n a s ac harg e. ” P ij ne nbur g, 255 F . 3d at 13 07. T his Co urt w ill

“ not treat intake questio nnaires willy -nilly as charges. ” W ilkerson, 270 F.3d at 13 20 . Bost sho uld have waited the required 60 day s after he filed his form al ch ar ge of dis cr im inatio n to f

ile his law sui t. H e al so c oul d have f ile d su it w ith in 9 0 day s of rec eiving h is noti ce of a right to su e fr om

the EE OC. Instead, Bost filed his law sui t be fo re e ith er

of the se e ve nts and i m

pe rm iss ibl y

by pa sse d th e adm ini str at ive pr oc es s. A s ar es ult , the A D E Ac la im s of the Bo st p la int if

fs f ai l. 2. T he Fre em an Plaintiffs Si x of the e m plo y ee s – C re am er , F ro st, G re gor y , K ro llm an , Ma cc ia , and17

Nels on – b as e th ei r ADEA clai m s o n t he EEOC cha rg es fro m th e Fre em an su it . T he F re em anpla int if

fs w er e em

plo y ed by F ed E x w he n th e na m ed

pla int if fs in Free m an filed their char ges of discrim ination . If the c harges of the nam ed pla int if fs in Fr ee m anw er e unt im el y , the se pla int if fs w oul d no t be e nti tle d to pi gg y ba ckon th e ch arg es . The district court concluded that the Free m an plaintiffs waited too long after the dis m iss al of

F re em anto fi le ane wa ct ionba se d ontho se c harg es . T he Fr ee m anpla int if

fs m ai nta in, how ev er , that the statut e of li m itatio ns f

or f ili ng the curr en t a ct ionw as tol le d un til Marc h 28 , 200 2, the da te the y c ont en d th at

the Fr ee m anli tig at ione nde d, and this a ct ionw as f ile d onMay

9, 200 2, le ss than 90 da y s l at er. T he E E O C i ssu ed

the la st r igh t- to- sue le tte r to any of the pla int if

fs in Free m an on Septem

ber 15, 1999. O n Septem ber 25, 2000, the district court dis m iss ed F re em anw ith out

pr ej udi ce and i nstru ct ed

the pla int if

fs to am en d th ei r co m pla int by O ct obe r 23, 200 0. T he y ins te ad e le ct ed to ap pe al the dis m iss al and order to am end. T he invol untary dism issal without p rej udice thus b ecam e an ad j udi catio n onthe m er its w he n th e tim e to am en d e xpi re d onO ct obe r 23, 200 0. See R ob in so n v . Fed . Nat'l Mo rtg ag e Ass 'n, 6 73 F.2d12 47 , 12 49 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). W e af fi rm ed the j udgm en t, and the F re em anc om pla int w as ne ve r pr ope rl y18

am ended. O n March 28, 2002, at the ur ging of FedE x, the district court issued an adm ini str at ive or de r co nf irm ing that the dis m iss al w ith out pr ej udi ce f

ro m Se pte m be r 2000 ha d be co m e ana dj udi catio n onthe m er its in O ct obe r 2000 . U nde r the A D E A , an e m

plo y ee ha s 90 day s a ft er

obt ai nin g a

r igh t- to- sue le tte r to f ile an a ct ion . S ee S an tin i, 232 F . 3d at 82 5. D ism iss al of ac om pla int , w ith out pr ej udi ce , doe s no t a llo walate r co m pla int to be f ile d ou tsi de the statut e of li m it at io ns . See St ei n v . Reyno ldSec., In c., 66 7 F .2d33 , 34 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). T ha t pe ri od e la

pse d be fo re the F re em anpla int if fs f ile d th ei r ne wc om

pla int . T he F re em anpla int if

fs c ont en d th at

the r unni ng o f the 90- day

pe ri od f or fi lin g an a ct ionsho uld

be tol le d un til Marc h 28 , 200 2. W e dis ag re e. A ll cl ai m s in Free m an were re so lv edon Octo be r 23 , 20 00 , when th e ti m e to am en d e xp ire d. The statute of lim itations began to run then. This ac tion, however, wa s not filed un ti l M ay 9, 2 00 2, 6 04 da y s l at er. A lth oughac ourt m ay

e qui ta bly tol l a li m itatio ns p er iod , the pla int if fs m ust es ta bli sh tha t t oll ing is w ar

rante d. S ee Jus tic e v. U nit ed S ta te s, 6 F . 3d 1 474, 147 9 (11th Cir. 1993). Equitable tolling is inapprop riate when a plaintiff did not file an ac tio n pr om

ptl y or f ai le d to a ct

w ithdue dil ige nc e. S ee id. E qui ta ble tol lin g “ is ane xtr ao rd inary

r em edy w hic h sh oul d be e xte nde d on ly spari ngl y . ” I d. T he Fr ee m anpla int if

fs f ai l t o e xpl ai n w hy

the y did not f ile an am en de d c om

pla int in19

Fr ee m an , a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt di re ct ed , nor have the y

e xpl ai ne d w hy

w e shou ld ap ply the doc tr ine of

e qui ta ble tol lin g to r ev ive the ir c om pla int . T he c la im s of

the Free m an pl ai nt iff

s, t he refo re, fai l.

B. Sta te Cla ims A ll of the e m plo y ee s c ont en d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by dis m iss ing the ir state lawc la im s w ithpr ej udi ce . T he y arg ue that the statut e of

li m itatio ns f

or the state claim s shou ld have been tolled, preventing di sm issal. T hey also argue that the court shou ld have dism issed the state claim s without prejudice if the court be li ev edth os e cl ai m s wer e n ot pro pe rly befo re i t. T he e m plo y ee s f ai le d to r ai se thi s arg um en t be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt e ith er in the ir tw o r es pons es to the m oti on t o di sm iss or in the ir Ru le 59 p ost -j udgm en t m oti on t o a lte r or

a m en d th e ru lin g of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he y

f ir st c ha lle nge d th e di sm is sa l o f th e st at e cl ai m s i n asupp le m en ta l m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ju dg m en t. The c ourt then refused to alter or am end its judgm ent based on an argum ent that co uld have be enpr es en te d e ar lie r but w as not . S ee A m . H om e A ssuranc e Co . , 763 F. 2d at 12 38- 39. “ T he re is a sig nif ic an t di ff er en ce be tw ee n po int ing out e rr or s in a co urt' s de ci sio n ongr ound s th at have a lr ea dy

be enur ge d be fo re the c ourt and ra isi ng a lto ge the r ne warg um en ts . . . ; i f ac ce pte d, the latte r es se nti al ly a ff or ds a litigant ‘ two bites at the apple.’ ” Id. at 1239. T he district court properly exerc ised20

its dis cr et ionby

de cl ini ng t o a lte r or

a m en d it s j udgm en t ba se d onthe e m plo y ee s’ ne wc ont en tio n r eg ar din g th e state c la im s. IV. C ONC LUS ION Bo st’ s in take que sti onna ir e w as not ac harg e of

dis cr im inatio n be ca

use Bo st did not m an if es t an in te nt t o a ct ivate the a dm ini str at ive pr oc es s un til he f ile d a form al charge. Bost’ s com plaint, which prec eded his form al charge, wa s pr em at ur e. T he A D E A c la im s of Bo st, Cl au sni tz er , F re em an , K ue nni ng, Ma

j or s, N a t a l i n a , B o s l e y, C o s t i a n e s , an dC h e s t e r , th e r e f o r e , f a i l . T h e A D E Ac l a i ms brough t by

those em ploy ees w ho relied on the charges from Fre em an – Cream er, Fr ost , G re gor

y , K ro llm an , Ma cc ia , and N el son – a lso f ai l be ca use the statut e of l i mi t a t i o n s h a de x p i r e d . Th e F r e e man p l a i n t i f f s f i l e dth e i r c o mp l a i n t6 0 4 d a ys after the statute of lim itations of 90 day s began to run. Finally , the district court did not abuse it s di sc re tio n by

de cl ini ng t o c onsi de r a ne warg um en t f ir st m ad e in the pla int if

fs ’ m oti on t o a lte r or

a m en d it s j udgm en t di sm iss ing the pla int if fs ’ state law claim s with prej udice. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AF FIRMED .