Opinion ID: 768289
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Express and Field Preemption

Text: 35 GD does not argue that the FLSA expressly preempts a common law fraud claim. No statutory language expressly preempts the appellants' claims. GD also does not argue that FLSA preempts the entire field of law. The statute contains a savings clause that allows states and municipalities to enact stricter wage and hour laws. See 29 U.S.C.S 218(a). Although this lawsuit does not invoke California's wage and hour laws, the FLSA's savings clause is evidence that Congress did not intend to preempt the entire field. Under field preemption, it does not matter whether the common law claim conflicts with the statute. See Industrial Truck, 125 F.3d at 1309. The common law claim is preempted because the statute provides exclusive remedies. While the FLSA may be a comprehensive remedy, as the district court argues, the savings clause indicates that it does not provide an exclusive remedy. 36