When awarding relief based on intentional discrimination, a court generally has the discretion to require reinstatement. Thomlison v. City of Omaha, 63 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 1995). Although reinstatement is generally the preferred remedy in an unlawful employment termination case, some circumstances warrant denial of reinstatement. Sellers v. Mineta, 358 F.3d 1058, 1067
(8th Cir. 2004). The United States Supreme Court has stated that a court may deny reinstatement only for a reason that, “if applied generally, would not frustrate the central statutory purposes of eradicating discrimination throughout the economy and making persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination.” Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421 (1975).
In some cases, the circumstances make an award of reinstatement “impractical or impossible.” Ollie v. Titan Tire Corp., 336 F.3d 680, 687 (8th Cir. 2003).
In Voeltz v. Arctic Cat, 406 F.3d 1047, 1052 (8th Cir. 2005), reinstatement was denied a former employee who...
