PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT AND DEFENDANT’S RULE 56(D) MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Reinstatement is certainly an available remedy in ADEA suits against federal employers. See 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b) (authorizing EEOC “to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) of this section through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without backpay, as will effectuate the policies of this section”); cf. Ford, 629 F.3d at 207 (can establish liability under § 633a by proving age was a factor, but may not be able to get reinstatement or backpay without proving but-for causation). Indeed, reinstatement is the preferred remedy under the ADEA, although it may not always be feasible or appropriate. See Blim v. Western Electric Co., 731 F.2d 1473, 1479 (10th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 499 F.3d
holding that courts should order reinstatement under the adea whenever it is an appropriate remedy because reinstatement best serves congress purpose in enacting the adea and an award of front pay is always somewhat speculative holding in an adea case that when after acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing cut off accrual of back pay reinstatement or the award of front pay was inappropriate holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3 holding that trial court did not have jurisdiction to order reinstatement of previously dismissed action and thus reinstatement order was void and of no effect and previous order of dismissal was still in effect holding no individual liability under the adea