at 227 (footnotes omitted). A backpay claim is not restitutionary because, as explained above, the nature of the remedy is to compensate and not to prevent unjust enrichment. Id. § 6.10(5) at 227 n. 15. The backpay Plaintiffs seek is not money the Defendant wrongfully withheld, but rather, wages they would have received absent their termination. "Such relief is not restitution-ary.” Terry, 494 U.S. at 571, 110 S.Ct. 1339. Simply characterizing backpay as restitution-ary is of no avail either because the award, at best, constitutes legal restitution not typically available in equity. Great-West, 534 U.S. at 213-14, 218, 122 S.Ct. 708; see also Clair v. Harris Trust and Sav. Bank, 190 F.3d 495, 498 (7th Cir.1999); Helfrich v. PNC Bank, Ky., Inc., 267 F.3d 477, 482-83 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Plaintiffs use the terms “incidental”
holding that equitable relief under  502a3 does not include compensatory and punitive damages holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa holding a plaintiff who denominated his requested relief under  502a3 as restitution while measuring that relief with reference to his losses rather than defendants gain was precluded from recovering the money damages as equitable relief holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that a jury trial was not required when the money demand although specific was incidental and ancillary to the equitable relief requested and would ripen only if equitable relief were granted