With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment in this case. 1 . The district court granted summary judgment to appellee regarding Plaintiff Jose Cabrera on the ground that Cabrera was never employed by appellee nor had any joint employer relationship. This ruling is not appealed. 2 . The terms of § 254(a) are limited by § 254(b), which allows compensation provided by contract or custom. But the only evidence that appellants point to regarding custom is the CRR, which requires workers to have identification and prohibits unauthorized vehicles within the airport. The CRR does not amount to a contract or custom that would limit the effect of § 254(a). Appellants do not assert that § 254(b) applies either. 3 . Circuits which have addressed the issue concur. See Smith v. Aztec Well Servicing Co., 462 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Reich v. New York City Transit Auth., 45 F.3d

A: holding that gasdrillers in new mexico were exempt from flsa compensation for travel that ranged from thirty minutes to threeandahalf hours each way
B: holding that assistant managers were exempt under the executive exemption because inter alia even taking their longer hours into account the exempt employees were paid substantially higher wages
C: holding under flsa
D: recognizing that liquidated damages under the flsa  are compensation not a penalty or punishment
A.