by the DOL and that she cashed the check for the whole amount. Therefore, the Court will grant Aftermarket’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of Mion’s waiver of her FMLA claims. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Aftermarket’s motion for summary judgment. An Order consistent with this opinion will be entered. 1 . The parties have not submitted the WH-58 Form at issue, and the Court has not been able to obtain one from the Department of Labor. However, the court in Cuevas v. Monroe Street City Club, Inc., 752 F.Supp. 1405 (N.D.Ill.1990) (mem.op.) quoted the DOL’s WH-58 form as reading, "Your acceptance of back wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act means that you have given up any right you may have to bring suit for such back wages.” Id. at 1414 (<HOLDING>). 2 . The final FMLA regulations, are not
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 that 29 usc  215a3 does not protect internal complaints 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 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 under 29 usc  216c