7 . The Supreme Court has affirmatively extended the filed-rate doctrine to the Telecommunications Act. See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 222, 118 S.Ct. 1956. 8 . See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 222, 118 S.Ct. 1956; Maislin Indus., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116, 110 S.Ct. 2759, 111 L.Ed.2d 94 (1990); US Wats, Inc. v. American Tel. and Telegraph Co., 1994 WL 116009 at *3 (E.D.Pa. April 5, 1994). AT & T incorrectly asserts that the Central Office Telephone decision overruled US Wats. First, Central Office Telephone made no mention of the US Wats decision. Second and more significantly, Central Office Telephone reaffirmed the prominence of the anti-discrimination principle in the filed-rate doctrine. See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 226, 118 S.Ct. 1956 (<HOLDING>). 9 . See Central Office Tel., 524 U.S. at 222,
holding that because respondent asks for privileges not included in the tariff its statelaw claims are barred holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court holding that suits against longdistance companies for unreasonable rates were barred if the defendant had filed a rate tariff with the fcc holding that the statelaw protecting employees from retaliatory discharge was independent from the cba because the statelaw claim could be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine