employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding ...” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). Defendant argues that because plaintiff only made an informal complaint with the company, she is not protected by this anti-retaliation provision. The Fifth Circuit has not addressed this issue, but the majority of other courts of appeals addressing it have found that informal complaints are protected by the anti-retaliation provision in the FLSA. See Valerio v. Putnam Assoc. Inc., 173 F.3d 35, 41-42 (1st Cir.1999) (concluding that the FLSA “will protect an employee who has filed a sufficient complaint with an employer”); Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. White and Son Enter., 881 F.2d 1006,
recognizing drug traffickers will commonly possess firearms to protect their product to protect their drugs to protect their cash to protect their life and even to protect their turf alteration in original internal quotation marks omit ted holding that party who asked trial court to take certain action could not complain on appeal that action was wrong holding that atwill employees have no contractual relationship with their employers to support a cause of action under section 1981 holding that the antiretaliation provision must protect employees who complain about violations to their employers holding that a claim for retaliatory discharge premised on missouris workers compensation law arises under that law for purposes of  1445c because antiretaliation provision also authorized the filing of a civil action for damages the antiretaliation right established by the missouri workers compensation statute is an essential element of plaintiffs claim