— whether and under what circumstances a district court may order bumping as a remedy for Title VII violations. Reinstatement to a job from which a plaintiff was discriminato- rily denied need not require the displacement of an incumbent. The necessity for the bumping remedy only arises with unique, typically higher-level, jobs that have no reasonable substitutes. In those situations, the painful choice between the reliance interest of the innocent incumbent and the claims of a victim of discrimination has elicited conflicting responses from the courts of appeals that have visited this problem. Compare Brewer v. Muscle Shoals Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1515 (11th Cir.1986) (authorizing bumping to remedy Title VII violations), with Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool Corp., 717 F.2d 114 (4th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). One thread common to a number of circuit
holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that the district court abused its authority in requiring bumping holding that there is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in denying the discoverysanction motion