OPINION
This is an interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s denial of Viacom’s summary judgment motion. Viacom seeks to have James Ruehl’s complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., dismissed for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The District Court denied summary judgment after concluding that Ruehl’s failure to exhaust was saved by equitable tolling or, in the alternative, excused by application of the “single filing rule.” For the reasons that follow, we disagree with both rulings. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Viacom.
I. Background
Ruehl had worked for Viacom for twenty-four years, when, in March 1997, he was transferred from his position as director of accounting in the Energy Systems Business Unit to the tax department. 1 In “late 1997 or early 1998,” Ruehl attended a meeting at which his supervisors informed him that the tax department was being *379 eliminated. 2 (App. at 291.) According to Ruehl, “[t]hey just informed me ... that I was part of the transition team and that my job would be eliminated on August 31, 1998.” (Id.) Approximately seven months later, on July 2, 1998, Ruehl received “[o]f-ficial notification” that his employment would be terminated, and that his last day would be August 31, 1998. (App. at 301.)
On his last day, Ruehl signed a “Separation Agreement, General Release And Promise Not to Sue” (the “Release”), which included a waiver of the right to sue for age discrimination under the ADEA. Ruehl testified that during the summer of 1998, before he signed the Release, he began to suspect that his age may have played a role in Viacom’s decision to terminate him. Other terminated employees shared his suspicion and, on December 21, 1998, two former Viacom employees, Norman Mueller and Harry Bellas, filed EEOC charges, alleging that they were terminated as part of a “pattern and scheme of systematic discrimination against older workers.” (App. at 151-54.)
In August 1999, Mueller and Bellas filed a collective action under the ADEA, in the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Mueller-Bellas action”). The ADEA incorporates the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 3 See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (incorporating § 216(b)). Unlike class actions governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which potential class members may “opt out,” collective actions under the FLSA require potential class members to notify the court of their desire to “opt in” to the action. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.”). 4
On March 14, 2001, the district court conditionally certified two sub-classes of plaintiffs in the Mueller-Bellas action. 5 *380 (See App. at 191-92.) Ruehl opted in to both subclasses on March 28, 2001. Viacom moved for decertification of the subclasses on May 13, 2002 arguing, among other things, that neither group of plaintiffs was “similarly situated” (as required for a collective action under the FLSA or ADEA) “because they have disparate factual and employment settings, there are substantial conflicts among members of each subclass, and there are numerous individualized defenses to their claims.” (App. at 193.) On December 9, 2002, the district court granted Viacom’s motion, de-certified both subclasses, and dismissed the action in its entirety. On March 20, 2003, the opt-in plaintiffs, including Ruehl, were notified of the decertification.
Nearly six months later, on October 14, 2003, Ruehl filed his first, independent charge of age discrimination with the EEOC. About four months later, on January 20, 2004, he commenced this action under the ADEA in the Western District of Pennsylvania. On August 12, 2004, after limited discovery on whether Ruehl’s waiver of ADEA claims was valid, Viacom filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Ruehl’s EEOC charge and his district court complaint were both untimely. On November 18, 2004, the Court denied the motion, holding that despite the facial untimeliness of Ruehl’s EEOC charge under the ADEA, his claim could be saved by either the “single filing rule,” which would allow him to rely on the filing date of Mueller’s timely EEOC charge, or by equitable tolling based on alleged defects in the Release Ruehl signed on his last day at Viacom.
On March 9, 2005, the District Court certified its order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), finding “substantial grounds for a difference of opinion exist as to both controlling issues of law,” resolution of which “would materially advance the termination of this litigation” and “three related cases involving 67 plaintiffs.” (App. at 22-23.) On January 31, 2006, we granted Viacom’s petition for interlocutory review. This appeal followed. 6
II. Validity of Release of ADEA Claims
As a threshold matter, we will consider the validity of Ruehl’s waiver of ADEA claims, which forms the basis of his equitable tolling argument. We agree with the District Court that the Release Ruehl signed violates the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626. The OWBPA imposes specific requirements for releases covering ADEA claims. In particular, § 626(f)(1)(F) of OWBPA provides that a waiver of claims is not knowing and volun *381 tary unless, at a minimum, “(i) the individual is given a period of at least 21 days within which to consider the agreement; or (ii) if a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the individual is given a period of at least 45 days within which to consider the agreement.” Id. In the latter situation, the employer must
inform[] the individual in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate, as to:
(i) any class, unit, or group of individuals covered by such program, any eligibility factors for such program, and any time limits applicable to such program; and
(ii) the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program.
Id. at § 626(f)(1)(H). 7
In signing the Release, Ruehl affirmed that he was informed, in writing, by Viacom, about
(i) any class, unit or group of individuals covered by the Involuntary Separation Program, any eligibility factors for the Involuntary Separation Program, and any time limits applicable; and (ii) the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the Involuntary Separation Program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program.
(App. at 147-48.) This language, drafted by Viacom, tracks the language of the OWBPA. It is undisputed, however, that Viacom failed to actually provide Ruehl with the required information.
Nonetheless, Viacom argues that the Release complies with the OWBPA because Viacom would have made the information available to Ruehl had he requested it. Ruehl responds that he did not request the information, but signed the waiver saying he did, because he was afraid that any request or modification of the Release would delay his receipt of pension benefits. He argues that the Release is invalid under the plain language of § 626(f)(1)(H) because that provision places the burden on the employer to ensure that waivers are knowing and voluntary. Ruehl is correct.
The OWBPA places the burden on employers seeking releases to “inform! ] the individual in writing” of the demographic information listed in § 626(f)(1)(H). Viacom never provided Ruehl the information, and the Release does not mention Ruehl’s right to receive it, nor does it mention that the information was available upon request or how one might obtain the information. Ruehl’s waiver was therefore not knowing and voluntary under the OWBPA. Having the employee say he was informed in writing — when he was not — does not satisfy the OWBPA’s requirements.
Our strict construction of the OWBPA’s disclosure requirement follows the direction of the Supreme Court in
Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.,
The policy of the OWBPA is ... to protect the rights and benefits of older workers. The OWBPA implements Congress’ policy via a strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers, and we are bound to take Congress at its word. Congress imposed specific duties on em *382 ployers who seek releases of certain claims created by statute. Congress delineated these duties with precision and without qualification.... Courts cannot with ease presume ratification of that which Congress forbids.
The statute creates a series of prerequisites for knowing and voluntary waivers and imposes affirmative duties of disclosure and waiting periods. The OWBPA governs the effect under federal law of waivers or releases on ADEA claims and incorporates no exceptions or qualifications.
Id.
at 427,
Consistent with
Oubre,
several Courts of Appeals have required strict compliance with the OWBPA’s disclosure requirements.
See Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,
Viacom argues that if we invalidate Ruehl’s waiver, employers will be forced to attach voluminous amounts of unwanted material to every release. This, Viacom contends, would unduly burden both the employer and the employee. 8 But we are not suggesting that Viacom was required to include boxes of paper with each and every waiver. We hold only that Ruehl’s waiver was invalid because Viacom neither attached the required information to the Release nor adequately informed him of the relevant information, or how to get it, in any writing at all.
III. Timeliness of EEOC Charge
Ruehl did not file an EEOC charge until October 14, 2003. That was 2135 days from the first adverse employment action — over five years late. Generally, a judicial complaint under the ADEA will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies if a supporting EEOC charge was not filed within 180 or 300 days (depending on state law) of notification to the employee of the adverse employment action.
9
“Like Title VII, ADEA has defer
*383
ral provisions and the time for filing a charge depends on whether deferral applies. In deferral states, such as Pennsylvania, the charge must be filed within 300 days of the allegedly illegal act.”
10
Seredinski v. Clifton Precision Prods. Co.,
Absent an applicable saving doctrine, Ruehl’s EEOC charge was untimely, and his ease must be dismissed. 11 The District Court held, however, that Ruehl’s claim was saved by the doctrine of equitable tolling or, in the alternative, the single filing rule. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that neither doctrine applies.
A. Equitable Tolling
The District Court denied summary judgment because it found there were material issues of fact about whether equita *384 ble tolling should be applied to Ruehl’s charge-filing deadline. On appeal, Ruehl argues that equitable tolling is appropriate for two reasons: (1) Viacom actively misled him by “obtaining an invalid waiver of claims,” that “lulled” him “into believing he had given up his ability to pursue a claim of age discrimination;” and (2) Viacom actively misled him by failing to make required disclosures under the OWBPA. See Ruehl Br. at 25-26. We conclude that Ruehl has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that would justify equitable tolling.
The ADEA’s timely exhaustion requirement is a non-jurisdictional prerequisite that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to equitable tolling.
Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. N.J. Dept. of Pers.,
In Oshiver, we explained two requirements for equitable tolling in an employment discrimination case:
the equitable tolling doctrine may excuse the plaintiffs non-compliance with the statutory limitations provision at issue when it appears that (1) the defendant actively misled the plaintiff respecting the reason for the plaintiffs discharge, and (2) this deception caused the plaintiffs non-compliance with the limitations provision.
Id.
(emphasis added). In addition, “equitable tolling requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that he or she could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered essential information bearing on his or her claim.”
In re Mushroom Transp. Co.,
Ruehl argues, first, that he was “actively misled” by the invalid Release into believing he had waived all claims under the ADEA. The problem with this argument is that Ruehl alleges a misrepresentation of law, not of fact. Although Ruehl may have been misled by the presentation of an invalid release, this did not cause his late filing because he, like everyone, has access to the law.
See Utah Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co.,
Ruehl argues, second, that there are material issues of fact about whether Viacom actively misled him by failing to disclose OWBPA information. He maintains that this information would have revealed age discrimination and undermined Viacom’s non-discriminatory explanation for his termination. But even assuming we agree with Ruehl that, depending on what the disclosures reveal, a jury could infer that Viacom actively mis *385 led him as “part of an intentional plan to hide vital information from its employees,” Ruehl’s diligence is also in issue. (See App. at 17.)
Ruehl cannot benefit from equitable tolling unless he shows
both
that Viacom actively misled him about the reason for his discharge,
12
and
that this deception
caused
his late filing.
See Oshiver,
Specifically, Ruehl admitted at his deposition that he first thought he had been subjected to age discrimination in the summer of 1998:
I guess when I was probably the oldest person in the department that was let go, and I was the only one not offered a job with the outsourcer .... [around] Summer of '98 I guess, you' know, around the time of my termination....
(App. at 295.) Ruehl also admitted that in 1994 he thought there may have been age discrimination at Viacom when, in his presence, Viacom’s Chief Financial Officer referred to an older employee as a “blocker,” and said that Viacom needed to “get him out of here.” (App. at 292.) Ruehl perceived this at the time to be the type of “comments [that] were probably made about me the same way when I wasn’t in the room.” (Id.)
These facts, which would have supported Ruehl’s cause of action, were known to him by the time he was terminated in August 1998. He has failed to explain how Viacom’s failure to disclose under the OWB-PA, however misleading, caused his failure to pursue a claim based on information he already had. Ruehl has therefore failed to show the type of exceptional circumstances that warrant equitable tolling.
B. “Single Filing Rule”
The District Court held, alternatively, that the single filing rule permits Ruehl, as a former plaintiff in the decerti-fied Mueller-Bellas class, to “piggyback” on Mueller’s EEOC charge, thereby dispensing with the requirement that he file a timely charge of his own.
13
The single filing (or “piggybacking”) rule is a judge-made exception to the requirement that plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Communications
*386
Workers,
1. Limitation of The Single Filing Rule to Class and Collective Actions
Beginning with
Lusardi v. Lechner,
On remand, the district court again de-certified the class, implementing our holding, but still finding that the plaintiffs were not “similarly situated,” because
[t]he members of the proposed class come from different departments, groups, organizations, sub-organizations, units and local offices within the Xerox organization. The opt-in plaintiffs performed different jobs at different geographic locations and were subject to different job actions concerning reductions in work force which occurred at various times as a result of various decisions by different supervisors made on a decentralized employee-by-employee basis.
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.,
*387
Then, in
Tolliver v. Xerox Corp.,
We rejected the Second Circuit’s approach in
Whalen.
We further emphasized the connection between the certification process and proper application of the single filing rule in
Communications Workers,
The focus of our early cases, Lusardi and Lockhart, was that in the limited context of a class or collective action, a single EEOC charge alleging class-wide discrimination satisfies the exhaustion requirement for all class plaintiffs because it achieves the EEOC goals of notice and conciliation. Our later cases, Whalen and Communications Workers, emphasized that the single filing rule is limited to plaintiffs who have undergone the class certification process, because that process ensures notice and possible conciliation of each class member’s claims. We have not squarely addressed whether the single filing rule applies in individual actions after decertification. 16
*388 Ruehl argues that because the Mueller-Bellas action had been conditionally certified, Ruehl’s subsequent individual action remains in the “context of a class action” and the single filing rule should therefore be available to him even after decertification. In our view, this proposed extension of the single filing rule does not follow from our precedent, and would make little sense under the facts of this case. We conclude that when a class is decertified because the plaintiffs are not “similarly situated,” those plaintiffs are in a qualitatively different position than plaintiffs in a certified class, and our reasons for applying the single filing rule — in Lusardi, Lockhart, Whalen, and Communications Workers — are inapplicable.
2. Application of the Single Filing Rule after Decertification
The district court explained in its well-reasoned and exhaustive opinion decertify-ing the Mueller-Bellas class, that its eon-ditional certification under the ADEA had been granted because there was sufficient evidence of age-based discrimination to proceed with notice and initial discovery.
Mueller v. CBS, Inc.,
No. 99-1310, at 6 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 9, 2002) (App. at 194);
see also Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.,
On reconsideration, however, the district court decertified the Mueller-Bel-las class, applying the factors set out in
Plummer v. General Electric Co.,
Plaintiffs are suggesting ... that we continue to “slice and dice” a group of nearly 1,500 terminated employees until we find two or three who are not hopelessly disparate in time, location, management, who have no internal conflicts regarding supervision, and who are subject to only one or two generalized defenses .... I decline to accept Plaintiffs’ suggestion that I resolve their factual disparity problems for them....
Mueller, No. 99-1310, at 59 (emphasis added) (App. at 247.) These reasons for de-certification strongly counsel against application of the single filing rule in Ruehl’s individual action.
First, and most importantly, plaintiffs whose individual claims were “hopelessly disparate in time, location, management,” with “internal conflicts regarding supervision,” “subject to only one or two generalized defenses,” are not different than the individual plaintiffs in
Tolliver
or
Whalen
by virtue of the fact that they were once members of a conditionally certified class.
See Whalen,
Second, we believe dissimilarity frustrates the EEOC’s goals of notice and conciliation — we stand by our disagreement with
Tolliver
in this regard. Notice is intended to inform an employer that “a complaint has been lodged against him and gives him the opportunity to take remedial action.”
Bihler v. Singer Co.,
Nor does Ruehl provide any reason to assume that conciliation of Ruehl’s individual claims would have been futile. The EEOC’s role under the ADEA is “to eliminate the discriminatory practice or practices alleged, and to effect voluntary compliance ... through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.” See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Fruitless negotiation of class-wide claims tells us nothing about the prospects for conciliation of individual claims that involve potentially different conduct and different defenses.
Third, and finally, we are unmoved by Ruehl’s prediction that failure to apply the single filing rule after decertification will deter plaintiffs from joining a class, for fear that their time to file a charge will run out while certification is pending. A straightforward extension of our holding in
Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.,
For these reasons, we hold that the single filing rule is not available to former members of a collective action that is de-certified because the plaintiffs are not “similarly situated.” 19 It is therefore not applicable in Ruehl’s case.
IV. Conclusion
Ruehl’s EEOC charge was filed over five years too late. Because he was aware of a factual basis for his claim in time to file a charge, and Viacom’s allegedly misleading behavior in procuring an invalid waiver did not cause his late filing, Ruehl is ineligible for equitable tolling. In addition, because the Mueller-Bellas action was decertified on grounds of dissimilarity, he cannot piggyback on anyone else’s timely filed charge. Without equitable tolling or piggybacking, Ruehl fails to satisfy the ADEA’s timely exhaustion requirement. We will therefore reverse the District Court’s order and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Viacom.
Notes
. For most of his career Ruehl worked for Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("WEC”). WEC was later purchased by CBS Corporation, which was succeeded via merger by Viacom, Inc. For ease of reference, we will refer to the defendant-appellant as "Viacom.”
. The record supports Viacom’s assertion that the meeting was on December 10, 1997, and Ruehl does not dispute that date. (See App. at 124, 429.)
. Most courts, ours included, have not been methodical in their use of the terms "class action” and “collective action.” The result is that numerous cases about FLSA "collective actions” use the Rule 23 term "class action.” Here, we will quote cases that use the terms interchangeably, and we will refer to members of a "collective action” as part of a "class,” but we will indicate where our analysis is limited to collective actions.
.
See also Whalen v. W.R. Grace & Co.,
. Subclass I, relating to Mueller’s and Bellas's claim of discriminatory termination decisions, was defined as:
All United States citizens employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation ... who were designated by Westinghouse as "Professionals” or "Managers” and who were, at any time between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1999, involuntarily terminated from employment with Westinghouse (or who elected retirement after being informed that their employment with Westinghouse was going to be involuntarily terminated) and who were, at the time of such involuntary termination (or retirement), 40 years of age or older.
(App. at 192.) Subclass II, relating to Mueller's and Bellas's claim of discrimination *380 through amendments to the Westinghouse Pension Plan in 1994, was defined as:
All participants in the Westinghouse Pension Plan who were 40 years of age or older on January 1, 1995, and who took the "lump sum" option between January 1995, and December 31, 1999.
(.Id.)
. Our review of the District Court's denial of summary judgment is plenary.
See Miller v. Bolger,
. The Release that Ruehl signed was undis-putedly governed by § 626(f)(1)(H).
. Viacom and amicus curiae, United States Chamber of Commerce, point to the fact that the EEOC asked for public comments on whether providing demographic information only "upon request” satisfies § 626(f)(1)(H). They argue that the EEOC's action shows that the plain language of the statute does not require appending the material to the release. They also point to comments received by the EEOC from the Equal Employment Advisory Council, which state that "a waiver will not be rendered invalid if the information [in sub-paragraph H is] made available for examination instead of being distributed in full .... [i]f the employer simply informs all eligible employees that the additional information is available for inspection in the personnel office or other convenient location, those interested will be able to access and examine it.” See Viacom Br. at 57 (citing July 22, 1992 letter from Equal Employment Advisory Council to EEOC at 22, App. at 107) (emphasis added). Here, Viacom neither appended the required information to the Release nor informed employees in writing about how to get it.
. Section 7(d) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), details this "exhaustion requirement”:
*383 No civil action may be commenced by an individual under this section [authorizing civil actions] until 60 days after a charge alleging unlawful discrimination has been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Such a charge shall be filed—
(1) within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred; or
(2) in a case to which section 633(b) of this title applies, within 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred, or within 30 days after receipt by the individual of notice of termination of proceedings under State law, whichever is earlier.
Upon receiving such a charge, the Commission shall promptly notify all persons named in such charge as prospective defendants in the action and shall promptly seek to eliminate any alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.
Id. (footnote added).
. Section 633(b), explains what makes a state a "deferral state”:
In the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated: Provided, That such sixty-day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State law. If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State authority other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for lire purposes of this subsection at the time such statement is sent by registered mail to the appropriate State authority.
Id.
. In addition to the exhaustion requirement, the ADEA has a filing requirement, under which a judicial complaint must be filed within 90 days of either (1) receipt of a notice that a charge filed with the EEOC has been dismissed or (2) notice EEOC proceedings are being terminated by the EEOC.
See Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.,
. We express no opinion about whether Ruehl has established a factual basis for his claim that Viacom actively misled him, but we reject Viacom's legal argument that Ruehl cannot show "actively misleading” conduct under
Oshiver
based on a failure to disclose under the OWBPA.
See Meyer v. Riegel Prods. Co.,
. We express no opinion on whether Mueller’s charge was timely filed.
. We outlined the purpose of filing discrimination claims first with the EEOC in
Anjelino v. New York Times Co.,
The preliminary step of the filing of the EEOC charge and the receipt of the right to sue notification are essential parts of the statutory plan, designed to correct discrimination through administrative conciliation and persuasion if possible, rather than by formal court action. Because the aim of the statutory scheme is to resolve disputes by informal conciliation, prior to litigation, suits in the district court are limited to matters of which the EEOC has had notice and a chance, if appropriate, to settle.
Id. at 93 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
. We recognized in
Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
. Courts in the Western District of Pennsylvania have generally applied it post-decertifi-cation, whereas courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have generally not.
Compare
*388
Ray v. Consol. Rail Corp.,
No. 98-1757, at 7,
. At the “reconsideration phase,” after potential class members have filed their consents to opt in and after there has been further discovery to support the plaintiffs’ allegations, a district court may revoke conditional certification if the proposed class does not meet FLSA's “similarly situated” requirement. Neither FLSA nor the ADEA define the term "similarly situated,” but we have approved of the balancing of factors in
Plummer,
.
See also Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp.,
. Our holding is limited to a decertified collective action. We express no opinion about application of the rule in the context of a decertified, Rule 23 class action.