liability under Title VII in the case of Fantini v. Salem State College, 557 F.3d 22, 28-32 (1st Cir.2009)—the court notes the existence of jurisprudence that the analytical framework for ADEA discrimination was patterned after the framework for Title VII cases and the precedents are generally interchangeable. Hazel v. U.S. Postmaster General, 7 F.3d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1993); Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir.1991). The framework being McDonnell Douglas analysis of liability. Notwithstanding, the matter of personal supervisory liability is patterned under the Fair Labor Standards Act as the enforce ment sections of the ADEA are patterned after the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 67-69, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) (<HOLDING>). “Section 626(b) [of ADEA] also permits
holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration holding that the otca limitations period applied to a claim alleging a breach of the fair labor standards act by the state holding that enforcement sections and coverage as to state employees of adea are patterned after the fair labor standards act 29 us 1938 flsa holding that the inability to proceed as a class does not deprive plaintiffs of substantive rights under the fair labor standards act flsa holding that application of fair labor standards act flsa to transportation employees employed by local government does not contravene the commerce clause because labor conditions of those employees affect interstate commerce