period would have on FLSA recoveries, most courts have held that such provisions are unenforceable. See Taylor v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., No. 1:13 CV 31, 2013 WL 2087359, at *3 (N.D.Ohio May 14, 2013) (refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement that provided for a 30-day period of limitations because it “[d]epriv[ed] an employee of his full recovery by diminishing his right to compensation” and therefore “denie[d] him his substantive rights under the FLSA.”); Pruiett, 2011 WL 5520969, at *5 (“Plaintiffs’ substantive right to full compensation under the FLSA may not be bargained away[,]” and therefore “the contractual limitations period is unenforceable as to FLSA claims.”); see also Wineman v. Durkee Lakes Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc., B52 F.Supp.2d 815, 822 (E.D.Mich.2005) (<HOLDING>). The decision to the contrary, Boaz v. Federal
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 placement of a contractual limitations period in a section entitled claims was reasonable holding under flsa holding that enforcing a contractual limitations period against an flsa claim violates public policy for other reasons holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim