the DOL and Aftermarket, including at least a letter, a fax, a phone call, and another communication involving payroll expenses. (See Def.’s Br. Supp.Mot.Summ.J.Exs. 7, 8; Pl.’s Resp. Br.Ex. C.) Mion argues that the DOL “clearly did not resolve Plaintiffs claim in accordance with the damage provisions of § [2] 617(a)(1)(A),” because the $310.18 is well below what “Plaintiff intends to prove at trial sed the settlement of Mion’s claim within the meaning of the FLSA. The Court must next determine whether Mion agreed to accept the DOL-supervised back wage payment of $310.18. In Walton, the court held that the mere cashing of a check issued under a DOL-supervised settlement did not release the employees’ claims where the DOL did not send out the applicable release forms. 786 F.2d at 307 (<HOLDING>). However, Walton noted that the DOL may
holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc  203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc  203d holding that the authorization under 29 usc  1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc  1106a holding under flsa 29 usc  216c holding that the defendant is in the best position to prove and should bear the burden of establishing its entitlement to an exemption under 29 usc  1108 from 29 usc  1106b erisas prohibited transactions provision holding under flsa