Opinion ID: 794672
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: calculation of lost wages

Text: 121 Riverboat also challenges the district court's calculation of the plaintiffs' lost earnings. As in other retaliatory discharge contexts, salary earned after a plaintiff is terminated should be deducted from the back pay otherwise allowable. Cf. Donnelly, 874 F.2d at 411 (discussing calculation of damages under Title VII). In this case, the district court detailed with precision the salaries earned by the plaintiffs after being discharged by Riverboat; the number of work days missed between their terminations and finding new employment; and the income earned, and hours worked, in their new positions in relation to their salaries and hours while employed by Riverboat. See R.191 at 30-36. In reviewing the claim for `loss of wages,' we note that we are bound by the district court's determination as to the appropriate amount of damages unless that determination is clearly erroneous. Fleming v. County of Kane, 898 F.2d 553, 560 (7th Cir.1990). 122 To be sure, the testimony of some of the plaintiffs on this issue is slightly vague. For example, Mr. Palmer responded to a question about his income in 1998 with, Maybe $30,000. I don't know. Tr.III at 91. He then estimated that his income for the next few years was [p]robably somewhere in the same ball park. Id. Nevertheless, Riverboat has failed to offer any evidence that Mr. Palmer's estimate that he earned $30,000 per annum does not reflect accurately his actual income. In calculating lost income, the district court is free to credit the plaintiffs' testimony regarding their sources and level of income. In this respect, the record supports the district court's conclusion that Mr. Palmer earned $30,000 a year in his new position, $20,020 less than his annual salary while employed by Riverboat. 123