on his lost wages. Id. at 70. This Court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that since there was no pain and suffering shown in the case, merely an economic loss resulting from the discharge, the suit was in reality one for lost wages not personal injuries. Id. Focusing instead on the nature of the claim, we explained that a denial of a civil right such as free speech involves a personal injury just as much as a physical assault, and, citing Roemer, held that as a result the whole of the taxpayer’s damages were excludable under § 104(a)(2) because “any economic injury proximately resulting, such as loss of wages ... may be compensated for in an award of damages for the personal injuries involved....” Id. at 71. See also Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 872-73 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Recently, this Court extended the analysis of
holding that an award of damages specifically allocated to back pay as a result of a wrongful discharge in violation of first amendment rights under  1983 was nontaxable under  104a2 holding that back pay awards are not excludable from gross income under 26 usc  104a2 1988 because the overwhelming weight of authority supports the view that an award of back pay under title vii does not constitute the legal remedy of damages recognizing equitable nature of back pay award under age discrimination in employment act holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court holding that an award of back pay under title vii remains an equitable remedy to be awarded by the district court in its discretion