namely, to implement the terms of a contract that required the State to eliminate the pay premiums to match the recipients’ status vis-a-vis the FLSA. That the State’s action took place because of a judicial declaration of the appellants’ status, brought about by the appellants’ suit, neither transforms the character of the action nor renders it per se unlawful under the FLSA. For aught that appears, the State would have taken the same action regardless of the presence or absence of retaliatory animus. Third: Next, the appellants bombard the CBA itself. They have lately come to the view that a contract which permits the State to forgo the non-standard pay premium whenever a court determines that a class of employees is not exempt from FLSA coverage is an abomination, and thus .1993) (<HOLDING>); Adams, 890 F.2d at 839 (finding no
holding that flsa which provides an exemption from the acts wage and overtime provisions for fishermen preempts claims under alaskas minimumwage and overtime statute holding that the flsa does not prohibit changes in wage rates it prohibits the payment of overtime at less than one and onehalf times the regular wage rate holding that the purpose of predecessor texas wage rate statute was to ensure that workers on public projects receive not less than prevailing rate holding that aims of wage and overtime provisions of flsa were not sufficiently connected to fourteenth amendment concerns so as to fall under congress  5 powers holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs wage and invasionofprivacy claims