that decision was taken in response to the Mills ruling only in the sense that the State believed itself obligated to follow both the letter and the spirit of the federal court’s decree. There is simply no basis for a reasoned inference that the State’s reliance on the CBA was a pretext for retaliation. In a nutshell, then, the State plainly changed the appellants’ classification for a nondiseriminatory rea when city altered employees’ compensation structure to offset budgetary impact of Garcia decision). B The appellants also claim that the either-or proposition contained in the nonstandard workweek article amounts to an unenforceable waiver of their FLSA rights. See Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 745-46, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 1447-48, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981) (<HOLDING>). This is an old whine in a new bottle. As
holding that the flsa does not preempt a state law contractual claim that seeks to recover wages for time that is compensable under the contract but not under the flsa holding that employees may not contract away their flsa rights holding that the flsa does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the flsa demands holding under flsa holding that individual rights under the flsa may not be waived through agreement