securing approval would be denied overtime and regular pay for the excess hours. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 21). Plaintiff alleges that she told defendant that this policy was impermissible under the FLSA and continued to insist on overtime pay for one of the employees. Plaintiff claims that because of these acts, she was demoted on July 11, 2002, and then suspended on August 28, 2002. The FLSA provides, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because suc 11 (11th Cir.1989) (explaining that the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA “was designed to prevent fear or economic retaliation by an employer against an employee who chose to voice ... a grievance”); Love v. Re/Max of America, 738 F.2d 383, 387 (10th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., 513 F.2d
holding under flsa holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act holding that the flsa applies to employee who sent memorandum to employer requesting a raise with a copy of the equal pay act attached and was fired within two hours holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee holding that nothing in the flsa bars an employer from contracting with his employees to pay them the same wages that they received previously