associated with personal injury.” The Court further noted that, “Congress declined to recompense Title VII plaintiffs for anything beyond the wages properly due them.” Id., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1873-74 (emphasis added). Burke teaches that back pay awards under Title VII are properly considered restitutionary because they constitute the “wages properly due” to the plaintiff. In addition to the foregoing areas, the courts of appeals have authorized equitable back pay awards in a number of other cases. See, e.g., Bertot v. School Dist. No. 1, 613 F.2d 245, 250 (10th Cir.1979) (en banc) (equitable back pay remedy available in Pickering cases); McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1116 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1983) (same); Cline v. Roadway Express, Inc., 689 F.2d 481, 488-90 (4th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Dickerson v. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc., 703
holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court 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 recognizing equitable nature of back pay award under age discrimination in employment act