or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof’), or the employer is an enterprise engaged in commerce (enterprise coverage), 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (defining “enterprise engaged in commerce” as enterprises that, inter alia, have annual gross revenue of $500,000 or greater). Chao v. A-One Medical Services, Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 914 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added). The FLSA prohibits an “employer” from employing “employees” who are “engaged in commerce” or “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce” without compensating the employees at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rate for the hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 343 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The FLSA defines an enterprise engaged in
holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding municipal police department to be an enterprise within meaning of hobbs act holding that a religious foundation is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the fair labor standards act holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act