could extend its more protective overtime pay laws to maritime workers on the high seas. We relied on the principle that FLSA sets a floor rather than a ceiling on protective legislation, holding that FLSA does not “preempt states from according more generous protection to maritime employees on the high seas off a state’s coastal waters.” Id. at 1425. In Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1152-53 (9th Cir.2000), we held that a common law fraud claim, which addressed conduct not within the scope of FLSA, was not preempted by FLSA. Our decision in Williamson contained somewhat contradictory statements. On the one hand, we suggested in dicta that “[c]laims that are directly covered by the FLSA (such as overtime and retaliation d L 24216269 (C.D.Cal. Dec.9, 2003) (<HOLDING>). A California Court of Appeal has also
holding in non  17200 case that the exclusive remedy for violations of the state and federal wage and hour laws is flsa holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs wage and invasionofprivacy claims holding that 42 usc  1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations holding in non 17200 case that common law claims duplicative of the flsa are preempted holding the flsa does not provide the exclusive remedy for violations of its mandates