1. Whether the district court's characterization of Petitioner's unpaid wage complaint as "merely" a contract dispute rather than a violation of the FLSA—despite wages falling below the statutory minimum, improperly narrowed the statutory remedial scheme and stripped the Petitioner of the Act's retaliation protection, in conflict with the standard established in Kasten v. St.-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011).

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erroneously affirmed the trial court's failure to recognize a baseless lawsuit as actionable retaliation, thereby dismissing the entire action premised on the flawed calculation of the limitations period from the date of termination, nullifying the jury's verdict in favor of Petitioner on the wage claim, and barring all recovery over a 16-day variance, in conflict with the willfulness standard established in McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988)

Whether the district court's characterization of a wage complaint as a mere contract dispute improperly stripped the Petitioner of FLSA retaliation protections and whether the Eleventh Circuit erroneously affirmed the trial court's failure to recognize a baseless lawsuit as actionable retaliation