
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Maria Scotzin; Kendra Whitney; Lori Crawford; Robyn Gilliland; Marissa Sockwell; Bridgett Greene; Intervenors, Steva Bowers, Applicant in Intervention-Appellant.
    No. 04-6001.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    March 2, 2005.
    Nathan L. Whatley, Joseph H. Bocock, McAFEE & TAFT, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      James W. Shepherd, Russell L. Mulinix, Mulinix, Ogden, Hall, Andrew & Lidlam P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Intervenors.
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Steva Bowers appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to intervene in a Title VII action against Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company. The district court denied Ms. Bowers’ motion because it determined that her claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Ms. Bowers argues that the district court erred because the Oklahoma Savings Statute is applicable to claims brought under Title VII. Alternatively, Ms. Bowers asserts that the district court erred by not equitably tolling her claims. We review de novo the district court’s legal determination that the Oklahoma Savings Statute is not applicable to Title VII claims. See City of Wichita v. United States Gypsum Co., 72 F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir.1996). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision that Ms. Bowers’ claims should not be equitably tolled. Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692, 695 (10th Cir.2004).

Having reviewed the briefs, the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its Order filed November 14, 2003. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
     