for declaratory judgment, and various forms of injunctive relief. The majority likewise cites to the prayer for relief, maj. op. at 240-41, as proof that a fee reduction is appropriate because the employees failed to obtain every form of relief requested. In this case, placing such a burden on the employees in order for them to obtain the full lodestar fee, which is presumptively reasonable, is unfounded. First, as the employees and amicus point out, punitive damages and reinstatement or other in-junctive relief are not available for claims under the FLSA. EEOC v. Gilbarco, Inc., 615 F.2d 985, 987 n. 1 (4th Cir.1980) (finding that only the Secretary of Labor may bring an action for injunctive relief); Lanza v. Sugarland Run Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 737, 741 (E.D.Va.2000) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the employees argue that the
holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the flsa holding under flsa holding that punitive damages are not fines holding punitive damages available for retaliatory claim under flsa