Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 86 S.Ct. 1717, 1724, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966) , that is, whether one may regard the statute as an enactment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, the court concluded that there was “no sufficiently strong logical connection between the aim of the [FLSA] — to increase the wages and shorten the hours of certain employees — and central, obvious Fourteenth Amendment concerns.” Id. at 210. The court stated that “in the absence of explicit comment by Congress, only efforts to remedy discrimination against a class of persons that Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence has already identified as deserving special protection ” is properly viewed as legislation passed pursuant to § 5. Id. The Tenth Circuit cited Wilson-Jones with approval in Aaron v. State of Kansas, 115 F.3d 813, 817 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, although Congress in passing the 4-R 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the flsa does not prohibit changes in wage rates it prohibits the payment of overtime at less than one and onehalf times the regular wage rate (B) holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment (C) holding that aims of wage and overtime provisions of flsa were not sufficiently connected to fourteenth amendment concerns so as to fall under congress  5 powers (D) holding under flsa (E) holding that flsa which provides an exemption from the acts wage and overtime provisions for fishermen preempts claims under alaskas minimumwage and overtime statute
Output (English): (C)