of law. II. Remedies A. Reinstatement versus Front Pay Gopher News asserts the magistrate judge erred by awarding Mathieu front pay rather than reinstatement. Front pay is an exceptional remedy and should only be awarded in lieu of reinstatement when extraordinary circumstances render reinstatement “impractical or impossible.” Newhouse v. McCormick & Co., Inc., 110 F.3d 635, 641 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Philipp v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 61 F.3d 669, 674 (8th Cir.1995)). However, the cases are legion that “substantial hostility, above that normally incident to litigation, is a sound basis for denying reinstatement.” United Paperworkers Int’l Union Local 274 v. Champion Int’l Corp., 81 F.3d 798, 805 (8th Cir.1996); see also Denesha v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 161 F.3d 491, 501 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (citing Brooks v. Woodline Motor Freight,
holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that attorneys should be disqualified where the substantial relationship test is met in order to assure that the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship and the loyalty between attorney and client are preserved holding that hostility justifying front pay should be such that a productive and amicable working relationship would be impossible holding that claims to property between samesex partners should be treated as equitable claims without addressing whether parties can be deemed to be in a meretricious relationship holding that provision would not be enforced due to that fact that the doctorpatient relationship is special and entitled to unique protection