579,‘582 n. 10 (1984). 6 . An expert is not always necessary to prove damages without “unreasonable speculation.” In Maxfield, for example, the plaintiff based his request for front pay solely on his prior earnings history. Plaintiff adequately proved his damages because "[t]here were no projections in earnings for which expert testimony was required." , 766 F.2d at 797. But see Kolb, 694 F.2d at 873 (proof of future raises was too speculative without expert testimony or objective evidence of past raises). 7 . The term "position” includes the duties of an employee as well as his title. To hold differently would permit an employer to escape liability merely by reassigning the duties of an unlawfully terminated employee to others holding different titles. See Bartek, 882 F.2d at 747 (<HOLDING>). 8 . Plaintiff may thus recover front pay
holding that under the similar tex log govt code ann  2140012a where appellant failed to request writ of certiorari and no evidence existed in record presumption was that sufficient evidence existed to uphold boards decision holding that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position existed after his termination holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract holding governments position substantially justified where sufficient support existed in precedent holding evidence which was similar to the evidence offered here to be factually sufficient to support an award of attorneys fees