Reinstatement, however, is not always feasible. As the appellate court noted, “[t]here may be no position available at the time of judgment or the relationship between the parties may have been so damaged by animosity that reinstatement is impracticable.” Id. (citations omitted). Because reinstatement is an equitable remedy, the district court alone must decide whether reinstatement is appropriate. Id. If the district court declines to order reinstatement, however, front pay may be awarded to make the plaintiff whole. “Front pay” consists of the damages the claimant may reasonably expect to sustain after judgment is entered. Commonly defined as “future earnings,” front pay may include lost wages and lost benefits. See, e.g., Blum v. Witco Chemical Corp., 829 F.2d 367 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Unlike back pay, however, the award of front
holding that an antiassignment clause in a pension plan is valid under  541c2 and that the pension benefits thus do not become property of the estate and may not be made subject to a pay order under section 1325c 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 the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits holding lost pension benefits recoverable as front pay