but they are not considered binding precedent. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2. As concerns the persuasive authority of Brush, the court observes that the two cases cited by the Brush panel as “creating” the manager rule—McKenzie v. Renberg’s Inc., 94 F.3d 1478 (10th Cir. 1996), and Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, L.L.C., 529 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2008)—involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), not Title VIL Other circuit courts have refused to apply the manager rule to Title VII claims. See DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409, 421-22 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting that the manager rule has been applied in the context of retaliation claims under the FLSA but concluding that the rule does not apply to Title VII); Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 580 (6th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); but see Weeks v. Kansas, 503 Fed.Appx. 640,
holding that an employee seeking the protection of the opposition clause must demonstrate a good faith reasonable belief that the challenged practice violates title vii holding the employees complaints must give adequate notice to the employer that the employee is complaining of conduct prohibited by title vii holding individual employees may be liable under title vii holding that the only qualification  placed upon an employees invocation of protection from retaliation under title viis opposition clause is that the manner of his opposition must be reasonable and noting that there is no qualification on who the individual doing the complaining may be holding that there is no individual liability under title vii