With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". limitation on employee actions. 29 U.S.C. § 216(e). Mion’s interpretation of the limitation provision would render the immediately preceding waiver provision superfluous. It would also render meaningless the Secretary’s attempts “to resolve complaints of violations” as specifically provided in § 2617(b)(1). Like the scheme in the FLSA, § 2617(b)(1) encourages the Secretary to resolve FMLA disputes in the first instance. Therefore, the Court concludes that the DOL has the same authority to supervise a binding settlement and waiver under the FMLA that it has under the FLSA. Courts have found the requisite DOL supervision where the employer and the DOL exchanged a letter, call, memo, and visit, see Torreblanca v. Naas Foods, Inc., No. F 78-163,1980 WL 2100, at *2-3 (N.D.Ind. Feb.25, 1980) (<HOLDING>), and where the DOL met with the employer,

A: holding under flsa
B: holding that the flsa does not preempt a state law contractual claim that seeks to recover wages for time that is compensable under the contract but not under the flsa
C: holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa
D: holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim
A.