With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. The court also rejected the application of state-law indemnity principles, stating that creating a state-law-based indemnity remedy on behalf of employers would not serve the purpose of national minimum standards and would diminish employer incentive to comply with the FLSA, as well as deprive the supervisory employees of the overtime compensation to which they are entitled under the FLSA. Id. The other courts of appeals that have considered the issue have agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in LeCompte. See Lyle v. Food Lion, 954 F.2d 984, 987 (4th Cir.1992) (affirming dismissal of employer’s counterclaim and third-party complaint for indemnity against plaintiff-supervisor for plaintiffs’ FLSA claims); Martin v. Gingerbread House, Inc., 977 F.2d 1405, 1408 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Herman v. RSR Sec. Services Ltd., 172 F.3d

A: holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim
B: holding employers thirdparty complaint seeking indemnity from employee for alleged flsa violations was preempted
C: holding under flsa
D: holding that thirdparty indemnity claims are not premature
B.