integrity and honor. He performed his duties well, got along well with his coworkers, and was respected by his peers. This Department is losing a valuably trained asset.” In short, as this case was tried, the issue for jury resolution was not whether the LAPD could fire Avila for not claiming overtime or whether his trial testimony could be used in the administrative hearing. Rather, the only issue was whether the reason given by the LAPD for the termination was a pretext. That is precisely what the FLSA anti-retaliation provision forbids. See 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) (making it unlawful to discharge an employee “because such employee ... has testified” in a FLSA action); see also Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1325, 1333, 179 L.Ed.2d 379 (2011) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry,
holding that the antiretaliation provision must protect employees who complain about violations to their employers holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws holding that the antiretaliation provision makes flsas enforcement scheme effective by preventing fear of economic retaliation from inducing workers quietly to accept substandard conditions  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 holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws