& ORDER KAZEN, Chief Judge. Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 6). The motion is addressed to the Plaintiffs Original Complaint (Docket No. 1) but the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 11) contains the same challenged allegation, so the Court presumes the Defendant’s motion is still viable. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq., following a complaint regarding. overtime compensation. Plaintiff alleges that on September 28, 2001, defendant authored a memorandum which stated that individuals who worked hours in excess of a regular workweek withou 181 (8th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). It is axiomatic that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
holding that an atwill employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the reason for a discharge was the employees exercise of a right conferred by a wellestablished legislative enactment holding that employees claim alleging discharge in violation of collective bargaining agreement precluded subsequent action under title vii for the same discharge holding that where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employees assertion of statutory rights the discharge is discriminatory under section 215a3 whether or not grounds for other discharge exist holding that speech must be at least a substantial or motivating factor in the discharge quotations omitted recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge