Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Co. v. Gomez, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 663, 669, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016) (quoting Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1528, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013)). Claims for damages are largely able to avoid mootness challenges. 13C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3553.3 (3d ed. 2017). Damages claims “are retrospective in nature— they compensate for past harm. By definition, then, such claims cannot be moot.” CMR D.N. Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 703 F.3d 612, 622 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has held that a damages claim is not rendered moot because a related injunc-tive-relief claim becomes moot. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 498, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 370 
 Holding statements: (A) holding there was no jury trial right where court ordered reinstatement and back pay to teachers fired after desegregation order in discrimination case back pay is equitable (B) holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy (C) holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court (D) holding that a claim for back pay survived even after the ongoing harm an injunction sought to remedy was removed (E) holding that an award of back pay under title vii remains an equitable remedy to be awarded by the district court in its discretion
Output (English): holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy