the collective or class-wide nature of the charge.”). “The policy behind the single filing rule is that ‘[i]t would be wasteful, if not vain, for numerous employees, all with the same grievance, to have to process many identical complaints with the EEOC.’ ” Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir.1968)). “As long as the EEOC and the company are aware of the nature and scope of the allegations, the purposes behind the filing requirement are satisfied and no injustice or contravention of congressional intent occurs by allowing piggybacking.” Id. at 1223. Our threshold task is to determine the time frame that gave rise to Thiessen’s claims of discrimination. See Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 977 F.2d 527, 532 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Thiessen is relying on the continuing
recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal holding that law of the case acts as a bar only when the issue in question was actually considered and decided by the first court holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that for purposes of singlefiling rule the first issue is the effective scope of the eeoc charge actually filed