a clear abuse of discretion by requiring direct proof of discriminatory intent by Xerox in order for plaintiffs Lusardi to establish a prima facie case of a pattern and practice of age discrimination in this FLSA section 16(b) class action.” Plaintiffs’ Petition for Mandamus at 37. As he develops this argument, Lusardi shifts to a contention that statistical proof of the disparate impact of a reduction in force creates a pri-ma facie case entitling each member of the protected class who opts in to jury consideration of his discrimination claim. This presence of statistical proof, he contends, is a common issue of fact that makes all the opt-in claimants similarly situated within the meaning of § 16(b) of FLSA. See Distelhorst v. Day & Zimmerman, 58 F.Supp. 334, 335 (S.D.Iowa 1944) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, 150 F.2d 541 (8th
holding any common issue of fact meets the similarly situated test of flsa  16b holding under flsa holding that the flsa does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the flsa demands holding that plaintiffs met the similarly situated requirement by pointing to an express companywide employment policy allegedly in violation of the flsa holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim