her lost wages, lost benefits, interest, and liquidated damages were. (See PL’s Resp. Br. at 8.) However, the fact that the DOL recommends a settlement amount lower than that to which a plaintiff believes she is entitled is incidental to the nature of settlements. As the court noted in Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303 (7th Cir.1986), “[t]he statute is concerned with settlements, and a settlement is a compromise-the employee surrenders his opportunity to get 100 cents on the dollar, in exchange for a smaller payment with -certainty.” Id. at 305 (referring to 29 U.S.C. § 216(c)). In addition, a plaintiff who accepts a DOL-supervised settlement waives her right to an equivalent amount in liquidated damages under § 2617(a)(l)(A)(iii). See Torreblanca, 1980 WL 2100, at *3 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court finds that the DOL
holding under flsa holding under flsa 29 usc  216c 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 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 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