With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a clear abuse of discretion by requiring direct proof of discriminatory intent by Xerox in order for plaintiffs Lusardi to establish a prima facie case of a pattern and practice of age discrimination in this FLSA section 16(b) class action.” Plaintiffs’ Petition for Mandamus at 37. As he develops this argument, Lusardi shifts to a contention that statistical proof of the disparate impact of a reduction in force creates a pri-ma facie case entitling each member of the protected class who opts in to jury consideration of his discrimination claim. This presence of statistical proof, he contends, is a common issue of fact that makes all the opt-in claimants similarly situated within the meaning of § 16(b) of FLSA. See Distelhorst v. Day & Zimmerman, 58 F.Supp. 334, 335 (S.D.Iowa 1944) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, 150 F.2d 541 (8th

A: holding that plaintiffs met the similarly situated requirement by pointing to an express companywide employment policy allegedly in violation of the flsa
B: holding under flsa
C: holding any common issue of fact meets the similarly situated test of flsa  16b
D: holding that the flsa does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the flsa demands
C.