requirements for filing a charge under § 626(d) are not met. [Id. (citation omitted).] Since the plaintiffs have "failed to file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of [their] termination, as required by § 626(d)(2) * * their claim is "barred unless a reason for equitable modification of the limitations period appears.” Id.; see also Heiar v. Crawford County, 746 F.2d 1190, 1194-96 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 631 (1985). 2 To achieve that national uniformity, it has been held that ERISA preempts substantive state-law claims based on a former employer’s negligent handling of a benefit claim. Russell v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 722 F.2d 482, 487-88 (9th Cir.1983), rev’d on other grounds, 473 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985) (<HOLDING>). "ERISA does not supersede state regulation in
recognizing private right of action holding that erisa creates no private right of action holding that no private right of action exists holding that our courts have never found that violation of the nceepa creates a private right of action holding that a private right of action exists