resulted in a different recovery. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D); Black, 646 F.3d at 264. Hylind also raises several challenges to the damages determinations made by the district court. “A court’s calculation of damages is a finding of fact and therefore is reviewable only for clear error, but to the extent those calculations were influenced by legal error, review is de novo.” Universal Furniture Intern., Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417, 427 (4th Cir.2010). Hylind first complains that the district court’s determinations as to the duration and rate of back pay improperly intruded on the fact-finding duties of the jury. However, the determination of back pay is an equitable matter for the judge, not the jury. See Duke v. Uniroyal Inc., 928 F.2d 1413, 1424 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d
holding that an award of compensation for future lost earnings or front pay is an equitable matter for the court not the jury holding that failure to award front pay because the district court impliedly found that other relief was sufficient did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court holding lost pension benefits recoverable as front pay