advisory jury. E.E.O.C. v. E.I Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 480 F.3d 724, 732 (5th Cir.2007) (citing Rutherford v. Harris County, 197 F.3d 173, 188 (5th Cir.1999)). The purpose of front pay is to compensate the plaintiff for lost future wages and benefits. Id. Reinstatement is generally preferable to an award of front pay, but front pay can be awarded if reinstatement is not feasible. Id. In the case at bar, the parties agree that reinstatement is not feasible. The Court concurs. The Court has found that Hickman’s back pay award should be cut off in Febru ary 2008. As there is sufficient evidence that back pay should end prior to trial, an award of front pay is logically inappropriate. Cf. McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 361-62, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The jury found that Hickman was not entitled
holding there was no jury trial right where court ordered reinstatement and back pay to teachers fired after desegregation order in discrimination case back pay is equitable holding in an adea case that when after acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing cut off accrual of back pay reinstatement or the award of front pay was inappropriate recognizing nlrbs power to order reinstatement front pay back pay wideranging ceaseanddesist orders furnishing the union with relevant information and noticereading requirement among other remedies holding that courts should order reinstatement under the adea whenever it is an appropriate remedy because reinstatement best serves congress purpose in enacting the adea and an award of front pay is always somewhat speculative holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court