removal from an account associated with Vitro, one of Xerox’s customers. Hylind argues that she only needed to show that sex was a motivating factor for the employer’s decision to remove her from the Vitro account. However, while the district court recognized that Hylind was entitled to a motivating factor instruction under a mixed-motive framework and offered her counsel the opportunity to proceed on that basis, Hylind’s counsel instead opted to proceed under the pretext framework in order to prevent Xerox from raising a particular affirmative defense. We decline at this stage of the litigation to relieve Hylind of the consequences of her tactical decision at trial. And, in any event, Hylind has not demonstrated how these claims, if ultimately successful, might , 1069 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220
recognizing equitable nature of back pay award under age discrimination in employment act holding that back pay awards are not excludable from gross income under 26 usc  104a2 1988 because the overwhelming weight of authority supports the view that an award of back pay under title vii does not constitute the legal remedy of damages holding that back pay may be awarded to the date of judgment holding that an award of back pay under title vii remains an equitable remedy to be awarded by the district court in its discretion holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court