OPINION OF THE COURT
SEITZ, Circuit Judge.
The appeal in this Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) action, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., follows a jury verdict against the defendants W.B. Saunders Company (Saunders) and CBS Educational and Professional Publishing (CEPP) in the amount of $850,000. After the verdict, the district court, which had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, denied the defendants’ motion for judgment n.o.v. or in the alternative for a new trial. This court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
I.
In relating the background of this case, we rely on uncontradicted testimony, except where noted. Adeline Bruno, the plaintiff in this case, was employed by W.B. Saunders Company from 1974 until May 1986. Saunders is a publisher of medical textbooks and medical periodicals, or “clinics.” During the entire time relevant to this case, W.B. Saunders was a wholly owned subsidiary of CEPP.
Prior to the events out of which this litigation arose, Bruno was Director of Saunders’ Central Order Processing Department. This position was described in Saunders’ internal nomenclature as a “level 9” position. As Director of Central Order Processing, Bruno earned $44,350 annually as of December 1984.
In early 1984, Saunders announced plans to eliminate the Central Order Processing Department. One consequence of this would ultimately be the elimination of Bruno’s job. Bruno was at the time forty-six years old.
Later that year, while Bruno was still working in her Central Order Processing job, the Manager of the Clinics Fulfillment Department at Saunders was transferred, and his job became open. Anthony Degu-tis, then Director of Budgets and Planning at Saunders, was given responsibility for finding a replacement. Within the Saunders hierarchy, the title “Manager” was a step below that of “Director,” the title then held by Bruno. The newly open position was classified by Saunders as a “level 8” position. Bruno applied for the job.
The Clinics Fulfillment Department processes (“fulfills”) orders for Saunders’ clinics. From 1977 until it was computerized in 1980, the Clinics Fulfillment Department had been under the direction of Bruno in her capacity as Director of Central Order Processing. Degutis testified that his original belief was that Bruno “would best fill this position.” Indeed, Degutis was informed by two CEPP executives in New York to whom Bruno had indirectly reported, Richard Bates and William Wright, that Bruno was the obvious successor to. the Clinics Fulfillment position.
At the interviews conducted by Degutis, Beverly Dietrich, one of the ten candidates for the position, was treated differently from the others. Dietrich, who was then 36, was taken out by Degutis for a ninety minute lunch at an upscale restaurant near Saunders’ office in Philadelphia. None of the other candidates was taken to a restaurant. Bruno was interviewed for approxi[763]*763mately twenty minutes in a vacant office in the Saunders building.
Degutis testified that Dietrich “was not at the time we started the interview process[,] in my mind[,] qualified” for the Clinics Fulfillment position. At the time of the interviews for the job of Manager of Clinics Fulfillment, Dietrich was a Supervisor of Systems Analysis in the Clinics Fulfillment Department. Within the Saunders hierarchy, “Supervisors” are below “Managers.” Dietrich’s particular job was classified as a “level 3” position. Dietrich had been with Saunders three years, and had worked on the computerization of the Clinics Fulfillment Department. At the time of her interview, Dietrich was earning an annual salary of $19,773.
Dietrich’s previous work experience — beginning several years before she began working at Saunders — had been as Assistant Manager and then Manager of the Arena Stage, a theater in Washington, D.C. In that position she was responsible for a staff of 15 to 20 people. She was paid on an hourly basis. Her more recent work experience prior to joining Saunders had been as a sales clerk at Bamberger’s Department Store and as a front office manager at a grocery store.
Two months before formally filling the position, Degutis made Dietrich temporary head of the Clinics Fulfillment Department. While Dietrich was at the time the senior of the three Supervisors in the Department, Bruno testified that Degutis told her that Dietrich had been given this job because “I know how everybody felt about Beverly so I wanted to give her a chance to prove herself.” Degutis testified that this interim appointment was not intended to be a testing period for Dietrich.
Ultimately, Degutis chose Dietrich to fill the post permanently. Although the job had been posted as a “level 8” position, it was given initially to Dietrich as a “level 7.” Dietrich was raised from a level 3 to a level 8 in two steps primarily because Saunders management felt that her salary increase would otherwise have been too great for one person to receive at one time. Six months after her installment as Manager of Clinics Fulfillment, Dietrich's annual salary was $29,000. Following Dietrich’s selection, Bruno filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge alleging discrimination on the basis of age.
Several months after she was passed over for the Clinics Fulfillment position, and while she was still working at Saunders, Bruno was offered a job as Manager of Inventory Planning and Control in the Bellmawr, New Jersey warehouse facility Saunders shared with other CEPP subsidiaries. Bruno first accepted the job, but changed her mind four weeks later, before the job commenced. Bruno testified that she was told by a CEPP executive that a condition of her employment in that position was that she not proceed with her age discrimination claim.
Bruno was laid off by Saunders in May 1986. After her termination, Bruno continued to receive pay for four months. Seven months after her severance pay ended, Bruno accepted a job at the Provident National Bank for an annual salary of $18,000 plus benefits.
Bruno brought this action in the district court under the ADEA.1 After trial, the jury found the defendants liable for “willful” age discrimination in their failure to give Bruno the Manager of Clinics Fulfillment job, and awarded liquidated damages as provided for by the statute. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The jury verdict in favor of Bruno included $160,000 denominated “lost wages and benefits” and $700,000 denominated “front pay.” The parties agree that half of each of these amounts represents liquidated damages.
On appeal, the defendants present a litany of alleged errors.
II.
The defendants’ first challenge to the judgment in the district court is that the [764]*764evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. To win on such a challenge, the defendants must show that the record “is critically deficient of that minimum quantum of evidence from which a jury might reasonably afford relief.” Simone v. Golden Nugget Hotel, 844 F.2d 1031, 1038 (3d Cir.1988) (citation omitted).
Under the now familiar analytical framework that has been established for analyzing ADEA claims, the plaintiff first bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). If the plaintiff meets this burden, it raises an inference of unlawful discrimination. The burden of production then shifts to the defendant, who can dispel the inference of discrimination by articulating a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” for its employment action. McDonnell-Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. If the defendant succeeds in this, the burden then returns to the plaintiff, who retains the ultimate burden of persuasion. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095. To win his case, the plaintiff must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reasons were not the employer’s true reasons.” Sorba v. Pennsylvania Drilling Company, 821 F.2d 200, 202 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 730, 98 L.Ed.2d 679 (1988).
Saunders and CEPP argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because it was not adequate to raise an inference of age discrimination at the pri-ma facie case stage. They also argue that the evidence is insufficient to support a jury finding that their articulated, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision in this case is mere pretext.
A.
The defendants first challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to raise an inference of age discrimination at the prima facie case stage. Of course, after a case has been tried to a jury on the merits, “it is unnecessary for the appellate court to decide whether a prima facie case had, in fact, been established.” Blum v. Witco, 829 F.2d 367, 372 n. 2 (3d Cir.1987). “Where the defendant has done everything that would be required of him if the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant.” United States Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). Rather, the appellate court must consider the ultimate issue: whether the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that age was a determinative factor in the employer’s hiring decision. Blum, 829 F.2d at 372 n. 2. “The issue of whether plaintiff established a prima facie case is subsumed on appeal into whether the plaintiff has sustained his or her ultimate burden,” Dreyer v. Arco Chem. Co., 801 F.2d 651, 654 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 906, 107 S.Ct. 1348, 94 L.Ed.2d 519 (1987).
We will therefore treat the defendants’ first contention as an argument that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The defendants’ contention in essence is that the evidence of a ten-year difference in age between Bruno, who was 46 at the time she applied for the Clinics Fulfillment job, and Dietrich, who was then 36, is insufficient to support an inference of age discrimination essential to plaintiff’s case. Put another way, the defendants argue that the evidence could not support an ultimate conclusion that their employment action was discriminatory because it is insufficient to allow any inference that Bruno’s age was a determining factor.2
[765]*765We disagree. Congress has defined the protected class to include only those people between forty and seventy years of age. 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Where the plaintiff is a member of the protected class and the successful candidate is not, the precise difference in age between the plaintiff and the successful candidate is not decisive, at least in a case such as this where the difference is not so small as to make an inference of discrimination absurd.
Contrary to the defendants’ suggestion, this conclusion is not inconsistent with Maxfield v. Sinclair International, 766 F.2d 788 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1057, 106 S.Ct. 796, 88 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986). In Maxfield we held that the difference in age between a 65-year old and a 42-year old was “sufficient” to make out one of the elements of a prima facie case necessary to raise an inference of age discrimination at that stage of the litigation. Maxfield, however, presented a situation where the plaintiff and the successful job applicant were both within the protected class. In that context we found it necessary to examine the magnitude of the age difference in order to determine whether it would support an inference of discrimination.
This case presents the more common type of discrimination case where the plaintiff is within the protected class and the person ultimately chosen for the job is not. In title VII cases of race or sex discrimination, from which our method of analyzing age discrimination claims has been transplanted, this would be enough to support an inference of discrimination. See, e.g., Jackson v. University of Pittsburgh, 826 F.2d 230, 233 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 732, 98 L.Ed.2d 680 (1988) (title VII race discrimination case) (where plaintiff is within protected class, one element of prima facie case made out simply by showing that persons treated more favorably were not within the protected class). So it is in actions under the ADEA. Maxfield did not disturb the settled rule that more favorable treatment for those not within the protected class will support an inference of age discrimination. See, e.g., Massarsky v. General Motors, 706 F.2d 111, 118 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 937, 104 S.Ct. 348, 78 L.Ed.2d 314 (1983) (to make out prima facie case, plaintiff “need only show that he is a member of the protected class and that he was laid off from a job for which he was qualified while others not in the protected class were treated more favorably”). We conclude therefore that the evidence here was sufficient to support an inference of age discrimination.
B.
“[Ojnce the defendant has produced admissible evidence which would allow the trier of fact rationally to conclude that the employment decision had not been motivated by discriminatory animus ... plaintiffs ultimate burden of persuasion includes the requirement to show that the defendant’s proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination.” Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 898 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052, 108 S.Ct. 26, 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987). In their second, more narrow, challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the defendants argue that even if the evidence of the difference in age between Bruno and Dietrich was sufficient to support an inference of discrimination, there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the defendants’ proffered reason was a pretext.
The defendants here did articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for failing to hire Bruno for the Clinics Fulfillment job. The defendants state that Bruno was not selected because it was Degutis’s perception that her interest in the job was half-hearted. They also contend that Dietrich was selected over Bruno based on her performance as acting head of the Clinics Fulfillment Department during the two months that preceded her actual hire to fill the Manager of Clinics Fulfillment position. Before the district court, Degutis testified additionally that among the reasons he selected Dietrich were her “enthusiasm” and the fact that she was the “most qualified” candidate. The defendants do not rely on these explanations in this appeal.
[766]*766There is a variety of evidence that tends to rebut the defendants’ articulated reasons for their employment action. As to Bruno’s interest in the job, Bruno testified that she spoke to Degutis often about the job during the time between her interview and the time the position was ultimately filled, and that, indeed, at one point he said to her “Addie, quit pushing.” Both Degu-tis himself and Richard Bates, then CEPP’s Vice-President for Fulfillment Services, testified that, subsequent to Bruno’s interview with Degutis, Bates told Degutis that Bruno wanted the job. Degutis also testified that Bruno mentioned the job to him— albeit offhandedly — more than once during the period when he was selecting among the candidates for the position.
As to Dietrich’s performance during the interim period when she was acting head of Clinics Fulfillment, there was testimony in the district court by others employed by Saunders during that time — the Director of Management Information Systems, and the Manager of Computer Operations — that Dietrich did not show ability, at least in some aspects of the job. The evidence in its totality meets the minimum threshold necessary to support a conclusion that the defendants’ proffered reasons were a pretext.
The law is clear that a plaintiff can win an age discrimination action without direct evidence specifically relating to age by proving that the reason for the unfavorable treatment put forward by the employer is a pretext. Chipollini, 814 F.2d at 898. The message of Chipollini is not, however, that anyone who suffers an adverse employment decision can win a discrimination suit. The message is that Justice Rehnquist’s words for the Supreme Court will be taken seriously: “when all legitimate reasons for rejecting an applicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer’s action, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts only with some reason, based his decision on an impermissible consideration.” Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). This framework places a premium on truthfulness by the defendant. If a “legitimate, non-discriminatory” reason articulated by a defendant faced with a prima facie case of discrimination is not the true reason for a failure to hire, the court may infer that the actual reason was impermissible.
III.
The defendants next argue that the district court erred in the admission of evidence and they ask for a new trial. In this Circuit, review of rulings on relevance is plenary. See Brobst v. Columbus Services, 824 F.2d 271, 274 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed.2d 863 (1988). Other evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The defendants challenge the statistical evidence Bruno presented. In particular, they attack studies done by plaintiff’s expert that compare whether Saunders employees over forty years of age received transfers or promotions in proportion to the percentage of all Saunders employees over forty. The defendants argue that these studies are irrelevant because they did not account for the minimum objective qualifications of the jobs into which transfer or promotion was possible. The Supreme Court has held that “[njormally, failure to include variables will affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility.” Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 3008, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986) (Brennan, J., joined by all other Members of the Court, concurring in part). It has also noted that “[tjhere may, of course, be some regressions so incomplete as to be inadmissible as irrelevant.” Id. at 400 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. at 3009 n. 10.
Unlike the main cases cited by the defendants, this is not a class action disparate impact or disparate treatment case. See Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1115, 105 S.Ct. 2357, 86 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985) (disparate impact); Valentino v. United States Postal Service, 674 F.2d 56 (D.C.Cir.1982) (dispar[767]*767ate treatment). In such cases, statistical evidence that does not account for minimum objective qualifications may not “measure disparities among comparably qualified workers, rather than disparities in qualifications.” Segar, 738 F.2d at 1274. Of course, even in such cases, the requirement that statistical evidence account for minimum qualifications is not a “hard and fast rule.” Id. Still, as a general matter, in class actions — “where liability depends on a challenge to systemic employment practices[,] courts have required finely tuned statistical evidence.” Krodel v. Young, 748 F.2d 701, 709 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 817, 106 S.Ct. 62, 88 L.Ed.2d 51 (1985).
By contrast, in individual disparate treatment cases such as this, statistical evidence, which “may be helpful, though ordinarily not dispositive,” id. at 710, need not be so finely tuned. In individual disparate treatment cases such as this, a general rule requiring that all statistical evidence account for minimum objective qualifications would not be broadly useful. Rather, “the usefulness of statistics will depend primarily upon their relevance to the specific decision affecting the individual plaintiff.” B. Schlei and P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 1316 (2d ed. 1983). See International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 340, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1856-57, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (the usefulness of statistics “depends on all the surrounding facts and circumstances”).
The statistical evidence in this case is being used to bolster the plaintiff’s case that the defendants’ articulated reason for an individual employment decision is a pretext. Even though it does not account for the minimum objective qualifications of the positions into which transfer or promotion was possible, we conclude that the studies are “relevant.” That is, as evidence they meet the requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 401 that they “make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Compare McDonnell-Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. at 1825 (defendant’s policy and practice with respect to employment of protected class relevant to showing of pretext).3
The studies are significantly less probative than they would be if they took account of the minimum qualifications of the jobs into which promotion or transfer occurred. However, the district court’s conclusion that they are more probative than prejudicial was within the limits of the permissible exercise of that court’s sound discretion.
The defendants also challenge the plaintiff’s statistical studies because they compare new hires to the age of existing employees — without taking account of the correlation between age and normal corporate advancement — and because along with “individual termination decisions” they consider terminations resulting from Saunders’ decision to close its printing plant. The plaintiff contends that these objections were waived because they were not specifically made in the district court. While the defendants did not object to this evidence at the time of introduction, they did challenge it in their motion in limine.
While normally an objection to the admission of evidence must be raised at trial to be preserved, this court will sometimes permit evidentiary question to be preserved by a motion in limine. See American Home Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, 753 F.2d 321 (3d Cir.1985). A determination that the objections were preserved by a motion in limine requires an evaluation of the extent of the briefing on the motion in limine, and the definitiveness of the district court’s ruling on the motion. The pretrial motion will suffice only if we con-[768]*768elude that requiring an objection at trial “would have been in the nature of a formal exception.” Id. at 324-25.
In this case, the defendants’ brief in support of its motion in limine specifically raised the evidentiary issues the defendants now wish to present before this court. However, the defendants have not pointed to any place in the record where their motion was ruled on by the district court. Without a definitive ruling against the defendants, there could be no reliance factor in this case. Consequently, the defendants, in failing to object to these studies at trial, have failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.
C.
The defendants also challenge the admission of evidence that Degutis and Dietrich, the woman he finally chose for the Clinics Fulfillment position, were seen together frequently. They argue that no reasonable inference of age discrimination can be drawn from this evidence. After an examination of the record, we conclude that, even if this evidence was not admissible, there was no reversible error.4
IV.
The defendants also seek a new trial on the basis of alleged error in the district court’s instruction to the jury that “[wjhere economic savings are directly related to an employee’s age, however, it is a violation of the [ADEA] not to hire an older employee for those reasons.... [I]f you believe that the economic savings to the company were an age related factor which induced the defendants to hire Beverly Dietrich for economic reasons rather than an older employee such as Adeline Bruno, then Adeline Bruno is still entitled to prevail on her claim.”
In the district court, at the end of the jury charge, the defendants challenged this instruction only on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it. The defendants renew this contention before this court.5
We find the defendants’ challenge without merit. While there may not be any evidence that there was a correlation between age and salary across the board at Saunders, there certainly was evidence that there was a financial saving involved in hiring the younger Dietrich over the older Bruno. In addition, there was testimony of another employee who was not chosen for the Clinics Fulfillment job, Ann Marie Mar-tino, that CBS (of which CEPP is a division) was trying to reduce its number of longer-term employees in order to reduce its costs. Because the defendants’ contention is without merit, the district court’s refusal to grant a new trial on this ground was not an abuse of discretion.
We also find without merit the defendants’ contention that a new trial is required because the district judge instructed the jury on the circumstantial order of proof developed in the McDonnell-Douglas line of cases. Even assuming that submission to the jury of the question whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case is error, we do not believe the instructions here could have confused and misled the jury such that the defendants would be prejudiced. At worst, the jury instructions — which, taken as a whole, fairly and adequately described the shifting burdens of production and persuasion— presented the plaintiff with an additional obstacle, the possibility that the jury would find for the defendants on the basis that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. Therefore there again was no abuse of discretion when the district court [769]*769declined to grant a new trial on this ground.
The defendants’ most confusing allegation involves a so-called missing witness, CEPP executive William Wright. Bruno testified at trial that Wright told her “off the record” that if he had been her, he would have pursued an age discrimination claim. She testified that he also told her “if you ever repeat that, I’ll deny it.” While defendants’ counsel said in his opening statement that he would call Wright to testify, Wright was not called. Although there was no evidence concerning Wright’s availability, the district judge gave the jury a standard “missing witness” instruction charging them to decide whether Wright was reasonably available only to the defendant or equally available to both parties in ascertaining whether to draw an adverse inference from the defendants’ failure to call him.
While the jury deliberated, the judge — at the suggestion of defendants’ counsel — took the highly unusual step of taking Wright’s testimony by telephone from New York. The purpose of this call was apparently to get testimony concerning Wright’s availability. Wright testified that Bruno saw him and spoke to him during one morning of the trial when he was in the courtroom. Wright also testified — in response to a question from the judge— that he had not made the statement attributed to him by Bruno. The judge granted the defendants’ motion to admit this testimony. However, by this time, the jury had reached a verdict for Bruno.
Nonetheless, the district judge permitted the jury to hear the testimony of Bruno and her counsel that neither one of them had knowledge that Wright was in the courtroom during the trial. The judge then had a tape recording of Wright’s telephone testimony played to the jury. The judge permitted an additional summation by each side, then sent the jury back to deliberate further with an interrogatory asking whether this evidence would cause them to change their verdict. Eight minutes later, the jury returned with the answer “No.”
The defendants challenge the propriety of giving a missing witness instruction, and argue that the instruction given by the district judge was in error. The plaintiff contends that there was evidence sufficient to permit a conclusion that Wright wás peculiarly within the defendants’ power to produce. She also argues that any error was cured by the post-verdict proceedings in the district court which presented evidence to the jury on the question of Wright’s availability to the parties.
The parties miss the significance of the introduction of Wright’s testimony. Wright testified not merely on his availability, but on the issue on which the inference adverse to the defendant was permitted to be drawn. Thus, the judge’s post-verdict interrogatory to the jury did not merely ask them to reconsider Wright’s availability to the parties, it asked them to reconsider their verdict in light of Wright’s testimony favorable to the defendants that he had not told Bruno that she was right to pursue her age discrimination charge. Thus, the “missing witness” is no longer missing and any taint that might have been caused by the allegedly improper charge was cured by his testimony and the district judge’s post-verdict interrogatory.6
V.
The defendants next argue that there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to find that Bruno satisfied her duty to minimize her damages. They, assert that Bruno’s rejection of the job she was eventually offered as Manager, Inventory Planning and Control at the Bellmawr, New Jersey warehouse facility constituted a rejection of an unconditional offer of a [770]*770“substantially equivalent” job. The defendants contend that this forfeits her right to monetary relief for any period subsequent to that rejection.
In Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 232, 102 S.Ct. 3057, 3066, 73 L.Ed.2d 721 (1982), the Supreme Court held that an employment discrimination plaintiffs duty to minimize his damages includes a requirement that he accept a “substantially equivalent” job offered by the defendant. If the plaintiff fails to accept such a job, the accrual of back pay liability by the defendant employer will be tolled. The Supreme Court, however, also recognized in Ford Motor Co. that the plaintiffs obligation in this regard was not absolute. “The claimant’s obligation to minimize damages in order to retain his right to compensation does not require him to settle his claim against the employer, in whole or in part. Thus an applicant or discharged employee is not required to accept a job offered by the employer on the condition that his claims against the employer be compromised.” Ford Motor Co., 458 U.S. at 232 n. 18, 102 S.Ct. at 3066 n. 18.
The jury here found by special interrogatory that the job Bruno was eventually offered as Manager, Inventory Planning and Control at the Bellmawr, New Jersey warehouse facility was “superior or substantially equivalent” to the Clinics Fulfillment position that Bruno was denied. A second interrogatory asked whether “the plaintiff act[ed] as a reasonable person under the circumstances would have acted when she rejected the offer of the Bell-mawr job.” We understand this interrogatory to address the question whether the offer of the Bellmawr job was conditioned on Bruno dropping her age discrimination claim.7 The jury answered in the affirmative.8 The defendants now argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s conclusion.
Even assuming this contention was not waived, an examination of the record reveals that the defendants’ position is without merit. Bruno testified that Richard Bates, then Vice-President of Fulfillment Services at CEPP in New York, told her “that it would be expected of me to drop my [EEOC] claim if I accepted [the Bell-mawr job] ... and I took that to mean that — that you better do it or they’re gonna find a way to get rid of you.” She also testified that this conversation made her feel that “They’re gonna get you over in a job that you can’t do and they’re gonna find an excuse to get rid of you.”
Bruno testified that she felt her fear was supported by her discussion with Bates: “I even said to Rick, ‘Suppose I try it. Will you put in writing that if it doesn’t work out and I can still be let go and have my same severance that I would have had in February?’ And he said, ‘Well, I don’t think we can do that.’ And then I thought right then and there: Well ... they really are not offering this to me as a way to help me; they’re just trying to help themselves. They want me to drop my claim.”
This evidence is sufficient to permit the jury’s award notwithstanding the substantial equivalence of the Bellmawr job with the Clinics Fulfillment position for which Bruno originally applied.
The defendants rely on the fact that Bates’s superior, William Wright, subsequently wrote Bruno a note, at a time when she could still have taken the job, saying “[t]he Bellmawr job offer is not, and never was, conditional on dropping your claim. If it was, the condition would necessarily have been stated in writing ... I do not understand how your perception of this matter evolved.”
The defendants argue that this memo renders irrational any inference that the Bellmawr job was conditioned on Bruno dropping her EEOC charge. This evidence, however, merely presents a question of credibility. Notwithstanding the memo, the record contains sufficient evidence to [771]*771support the jury’s conclusion.9
The defendants also point out that Bruno testified in a deposition that after receiving Wright’s memo, “I understood that I could accept the job and still pursue the claim if I wanted to.” In context, the jury was entitled to read this simply as a statement of Bruno’s belief that any such condition was contrary to law. Bruno’s testimony does not alter the fact that there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion by the jury that the Bellmawr job was conditioned on Bruno’s claim being compromised.
VI.
The defendants finally challenge the district court’s award of liquidated damages. The ADEA provides that “liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). A finding of willfulness in an individual disparate treatment case requires not merely that the employer knew or should have known that its conduct violated the ADEA, but “some additional evidence of outrageous conduct.” Dreyer v. Arco Chem. Co., 801 F.2d at 658. “The Restatement suggests that in assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider inter alia the character of the defendant’s act, and the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause.” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2)) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he appropriateness of the award [of liquidated damages is] dependent upon an ad hoc inquiry into the particular circumstances.” Id. The jury in the present case awarded Bruno $150,000 in back pay, of which the parties agree $75,-000 represents liquidated damages and $700,000 in front pay of which the parties agree $350,000 represents liquidated damages.10
To begin with, the defendants argue that the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of willfulness. We disagree. Again assuming this objection was not waived, after examining the record we conclude that there is sufficient evidence of willfulness to support an award of liquidated damages.
As to the character of the defendants’ action, both Bruno and Ann Marie Martino, another applicant who was not chosen for the Clinics Fulfillment post, testified that a job description prepared for the opening in that position was unusual in that it did not include a requirement of “management experience.” A jury could infer that the job description was intended to provide a justification for the selection of Dietrich over Bruno. We also observe that the evidence surrounding the offer to Bruno of the Bell-mawr job could support a conclusion that the position was offered her in bad faith.
Additionally, there is evidence that the discriminatory action here was taken against an employee who was being laid off after eleven years of service, in favor of an employee whose then-current job at Saunders was not being eliminated. It is also relevant that there is evidence that during her tenure at Saunders, Bruno received the CBS Employee Achievement Award and an “outstanding employee” award from Saunders for demonstrating “commitment and excellence beyond the normal requirements of [her] position.”
As to the extent of the harm caused to Bruno, there is evidence that she was unable to find another job for eleven months, and that she eventually had to accept an enormous reduction in salary. Taken together, the evidence — though concededly not all of equal weight on the issue — is sufficient to support the finding of “out-rageousness” required to award liquidated damages.
The defendants next argue that even if the evidence supports an award of [772]*772liquidated damages, such damages are not permissible on front pay. Liquidated damages are defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), incorporated by reference in the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as an amount equal to “minimum unpaid wages or ... unpaid overtime compensation.” The defendants argue that front pay is an equitable substitution for an order of reinstatement, and not an award of lost future wages. The plaintiff argues that the deterrent purpose of liquidated damages will be served identically whether the award is for “front pay” or “back pay,” and that the division of lost wages into past and future components is largely a matter of fortuity, depending upon how long it takes for the case to get to trial.
This dispute was settled in this Circuit by Blum v. Witco, 829 F.2d at 382-83. While Blum by its terms applies only to front pension benefits, its implication is unmistakable: “A front pay (or, in this case, front benefits) award is the monetary equivalent of the equitable remedy of reinstatement. Given its tenor, we decline to extend the liquidated damages provision of the ADEA to double this equitable award.” Id. at 383 (citations omitted). The district court’s award will be reduced by the amount that represents liquidated damages for front pay.11
VII.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed after a reduction of $350,000. Seventy-five percent of the costs will be allocated against appellants, and twenty-five percent against appellee.