survives even without an award of back pay. See Timm v. Progressive Steel Treating, Inc., 137 F.3d 1008, 1010 (7th Cir.1998); see also Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corp., 271 F.3d 352, 357 (2d Cir.2001). Because back pay was awarded in the case at hand, we need not reach this question today. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, concurring. I write separately to clarify what, I conclude, we hold in Part III and to explain my support of the judgment reached there. With respect to the standard of review, it remains the law of this circuit that when a party to a civil action fails to raise a point at trial, that party waives review of the issue unless there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying review. See Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Estate of Lebowitz, 185 F.3d 231, 239 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vanhorn, 20 F.3d 104, 114
holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue holding that failure to raise an issue until it is brought up at oral argument constitutes a waiver holding claim of alleged brady violation waived on collateral appeal for failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal holding that insurance companys failure to raise specific interpretation of contract at trial resulted in a waiver of its argument on appeal holding that government lost right to raise lack of expectation of privacy argument on appeal when it failed to raise argument below