clues previously discussed. Further, the conclusion that plaintiffs tax fraud claim fails is consistent with Congress’s intended scheme for redressing violations of the sort plaintiff alleges. At its core, plaintiffs complaint is that defendant improperly classified plaintiff as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. Yet, plaintiff is not complaining simply because he desires one title over another. Rather, plaintiff desires the benefits that follow employee status under the FLSA, namely guaranteed minimum and overtime wages. In this respect, . the Fourth Circuit has observed that the FLSA creates a comprehensive enforcement scheme that precludes enforcement through other federal and state law means. See Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181, 194 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Kendall v. City of Chesapeake, Va., 174 F.3d
holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that general maritime law preempts state law holding under flsa