were properly pleaded, these claims seem to be based upon the same factual assertions as the FLSA claim. According to the defendants, because state common-law claims seeking relief identical to that under the FLSA are not permissible, Morrow’s claims should be dismissed. Morrow responds: “Although it is true that Plaintiff cannot recover on common law theories that are preempted by the FLSA, the FLSA only allows redress for ‘overtime’ violations and ‘minimum wage’ violations. To the extent Defendant has denied Plaintiff forms of compensation that fall under categories enrichment claims can co-exist with her FLSA claims or are preempted by the FLSA depends on the nature of her state-law claims. Contrast, e.g., Freeman v. City of Mobile, Ala., 146 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F.3d
holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim holding that the flsa does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the flsa demands holding that the flsa does not preempt a state law contractual claim that seeks to recover wages for time that is compensable under the contract but not under the flsa holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims holding under flsa