violations correspond to FLSA causes of action consisting of the same claims. See Filing No. H7—Reply p. 1; Filing No. 186—Brief p. 21. Based on the express statement of congressional intent “not to displace state laws granting workers higher minimum wages or a shorter maximum workweek, it is clear that the FLSA would preempt only state laws that mandated lower minimum wages or longer maximum workweeks.” DeKeyser, 589 F.Supp.2d at 1081. Since, as the parties agree, the Nebraska wage and hour laws are not less generous than those of the FLSA, “it seems clear that the FLSA does not displace the state law. Rather, it would seem that state law may offer an alternative legal basis for equal or more generous relief for the same alleged wrongs.” Id.; see Bouaphakeo, 564 F.Supp.2d at 884 (<HOLDING>). In any event, the case at bar is nearly
holding in non  17200 case that the exclusive remedy for violations of the state and federal wage and hour laws is flsa holding that 42 usc  1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations holding under flsa holding the flsa does not provide the exclusive remedy for violations of its mandates holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law