LAY, Circuit Judge.
KARE 11, a Twin Cities television station, refused to renew C. Thomas Ryther’s contract as lead sportscaster for a fifth three-year term. In 1991, when Ryther was terminated, he was fifty-three years old. Ryther sued KARE 11 and its parent, Gannett Co., Inc. (collectively “KARE 11”), alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. Following a jury verdict in Ryther’s favor, the district court, the Honorable David S. Doty presiding, denied a motion for a new trial and, alternatively, a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court entered judgment awarding Ryther $1,254,535 in back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. See Ryther v. KARE 11, 864 F.Supp. 1510 (D.Minn.1994). KARE 11 appeals. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
I
Ryther served as a sports anchor for Channel 11 from December 1979 until July 1991, pursuant to a series of four three-year [1077]*1077contracts. Gannett/KARE 11 purchased the station in 1988, and in 1988 Janet Mason became KARE ll’s vice president of news. At that time, the sports department’s members included Jeffrey Passolt and Randy Shaver, both under age 40. Ryther then appeared on the six o’clock and ten o’clock news and hosted a weekly show, “Prep Sports Extra,” during the football season. Passolt did a sports feature on the five o’clock news and, along with Shaver, served as weekend sports anchor.
In the summer of 1988, Ryther was approximately fifty years of age. Ryther’s responsibilities began changing that year, shortly after Mason’s appointment to vice president. KARE 11 removed Ryther from Prep Sports Extra, which he then co-anchored with Shaver, and during 1989, the year in which Linda Rios Brook became station manager, Mason removed Ryther from the six o’clock news and assigned him to a recreational segment on the five o’clock news. Passolt replaced Ryther as sports anchor during the six o’clock time slot. In May 1990, Shaver was named executive producer of sports, a position to which Ryther was entitled under his contract. Shaver assumed many of Ryther’s organizational and planning duties.
On March 6, 1991, shortly after Ryther discovered he was being excluded from promotional photos, Ryther confronted Mason about the status of his contract. Mason told him his contract would not be renewed because he had failed in' the market research. After several events detailed in the district court’s opinion, Ryther, 864 F.Supp. at 1515-16, Ryther left KARE 11 and filed this lawsuit. .
The decision not to renew Ryther’s contract was made by Rios Brook, Richard Mo-dig, Vice President of Broadcast Operations,' and Mason. When Rios Brook was asked at trial what market research she “relied on” in making the decision about Ryther, she responded that it was the “Gallup” research, in reference to a survey conducted for KARE 11 in June 1990 by the Gallup Organization (“1990 Gallup Survey”). Tr. IV-136. Mason, similarly, said that she arrived at that decision after she got the 1990 Gallup Survey. Tr. V-194, V-197.
In earlier years, 1981 and 1989, there had been other market research, performed by the AtMnson-Farris Communications research firm (“Atkinson”), to determine KARE ll’s ratings. In 1981, the Atkinson research found that Ryther was “not impressive” and that his quality score was “extremely low.” In 1989, Atkinson again did a survey for KARE 11 and found sports “the softest part of your team.” Ryther had “virtually the same ratings” as he had in 1981.
In 1990, partially because KARE 11 found the Atkinson research incomplete, KARE 11 sought new market research by commissioning the 1990 Gallup Survey. The 1990 Gallup Survey reported that Ryther had seventy-six percent viewer recognition, whereas Mark Rosen, a sportseaster at competitor WCCO, had eighty-one percent recognition. Rosen was rated number one and Ryther number two in the overall Twin Cities’ market. The 1990 Gallup Survey reported that Ryther “underperform[ed]” and that he was not a strong player for KARE ll.1
KARE 11 urges that, upon receipt of the 1990 Gallup Survey, Mason, Rios Brook, and Richard Modig, KARE ll’s vice president of operations, made the decision not to renew Ryther’s contract in August 1990. The primary issue at trial, and also on this appeal, is whether the overall market research was the true reason for Ryther’s dismissal, or merely a pretext for age discrimination. Ryther asserts that he offered evidence to show that this was not true, that in fact the decision was made prior to that time, and that the research was biased and merely a pretext for unlawful age discrimination.
[1078]*1078The district court, in overruling KARE ll’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, carefully summarized the evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the alleged nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire Ryther was false. In this regard, Judge Doty found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to conclude that: the defendants made the decision not to renew Ryther’s contract before the 1990 Gallup Survey was undertaken; some of Ryther’s duties had been transferred to younger people and that his contract was not renewed despite positive performance evaluations from KARE 11; KARE 11 deceived Ryther by leading him to believe that his work was commendable, in order to prevent him from improving upon his alleged deficiencies; the 1990 Gallup Survey was purposely designed so that Ryther would not get a fair rating, thus masking the discriminatory reason for his termination; and KARE 11 provided a hostile work environment for Ryther because of his age. Ryther, 864 F.Supp. at 1515-18.2
Our standard of review of this evidence is governed by settled rule:
[W]e must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to [Ryther], assume all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in [Ryther’s] favor, and give [Ryther] the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the proven facts. A judgment [as a matter of law] should be granted only when all the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining [Ryther’s] position.
Frieze v. Boatmen’s Bank, 950 F.2d 538, 540 (8th Cir.1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted).3
Stated another way, it is well settled that we will not reverse a jury’s verdict for insufficient evidence unless, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, no reasonable juror could have returned a verdict for the non-moving party. Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir.1996).
II
The law governing the allocation of evidentiary burdens in age discrimination cases like this one is well established. See generally St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 510 & n. 4, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2749 & n. 4, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-95, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-06, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1823-26, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).4
[1079]*1079KARE 11 does not contend that Ryther failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. There exists ample evidence that the jury could reasonably believe that (1) Ryther was within the protected age group (he was fifty-three years old); (2) as manifested by his contract renewals and KARE ll’s own evaluations, he had been performing his job at a satisfactory level for over twelve years; (3) his contract in 1991 was not renewed;5 and (4) KARE 11 replaced him with a younger person. (Jeff Passolt was only thirty-three years of age and did not have as high of a performance rating as Ryther.)
The dissent urges that, once KARE 11 articulated a non-discriminatory reason for its actions, it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because it destroyed plaintiffs prima facie case. The articulation of a non-discriminatory reason by the employer destroys the legal presumption of plaintiffs prima facie case, and plaintiff is therefore no longer entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 510, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. However, as Hicks and Burdine make clear, if the employee can demonstrate that the reason given for the employer’s action is pretextual, then the case moves to a new level of factual inquiry. Id. at 515, 113 S.Ct. at 2752 (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255, 101 S.Ct. at 1094). Under these circumstances, assuming that there exists credible and substantial evidence of pretext, the plaintiff may still rely upon the elements of the prima facie case and the substantial evidence of pretex-[1080]*1080tuality to urge to the trier of fact that the employer was guilty of intentional discrimination. Id. There is no synergistic formula to determine whether the elements of a pri-ma facie case and pretext are sufficient to allow a jury to make a finding of intentional discrimination; we simply inquire whether there is substantial evidence which would allow a finder of fact to determine that the employer’s reasons were a subterfuge or mask to conceal age-based animus.
With this in mind, we again turn to the fundamental issue in this ease: whether Ryther produced sufficient evidence to allow a jury reasonably to find that RARE 11 intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of his age. Although much of the evidence is circumstantial, we agree with the district court’s careful analysis that a reasonable jury could infer that RARE ll’s asserted reason for discharge was false, and that the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to find that RARE 11 engaged in age discrimination.6
Ill
A. The Market Research as a Whole
Ryther urges that the record is replete with evidence that his research ratings reflected not his abilities, but RARE ll’s failure to emphasize sports. The plenary evidence to this effect included the testimony of Ryther that, just days before his dismissal, Paul Baldwin, RARE ll’s assistant news director, told him, “[t]he research isn’t your fault,” and explained that Ryther’s showing relative to WCCO’s Mark Rosen was the result of WCCO’s promotion of Rosen, its ownership of broadcast rights in several major sporting events, and its emphasis on sports generally. Other evidence showed that Ryther continued to ask for better sports promotions, but was denied. In fact, Rios Brook admitted that “[sports] was not an area that I was concerned about,” and Mason testified that “sports was relatively unimportant” in comparison to other parts of the newscast. Relatedly, Gallup Vice President Dr. Frank Newport admitted that Ryther’s showing might be due in part to RARE ll’s poor promotion of sports and noted that Rosen’s recognition was “unusual” for a sportseaster. Yet despite RARE ll’s own lack of sports promotion, Ryther remained the number two sportseaster in the market, second only to Rosen, and above RARE ll’s own Jeff Passolt and Randy Shaver.7
There can be little doubt that, although it had before it the 1981 and 1989 Atkinson research, the jury could reasonably reject RARE ll’s alleged reliance upon Ryther’s low market ratings on the ground that RARE 11 kept rewarding Ryther for his performance. In fact, RARE 11 negotiated and awarded Ryther with substantial salary increases in three different interim three-[1081]*1081year contracts. These contract renewals could easily justify a finding that, in this interim time period, Ryther’s performance was more than adequate to fulfill KARE ll’s programming interests.8
In May 1989, Lilyan Wilder, a training consultant to KARE 11, copied a letter to Janet Mason, written to Ryther after reviewing his performance in a training session. The letter read in part:
It was a pleasure to see you again and to work with you. Your authority, your sense of “sports” and the essence of it, are excellent. Your timing, your play-by-play and your good, strong voice are all positive.
Appellee’s App. at E2 (emphasis added). Likewise, as late as August 1, 1990, Barry Nash, a talent coach hired by KARE 11 in 1990, wrote about Ryther to Mason and Baldwin:
Hats off to Tom for the effort to create reports with more universal appeal. Innovations like the Three Musketeers footage he used to begin his piece on fencing are certainly a step in the right direction.
Id. at E5.9
Most significant, however, in the consideration of the conflicting evidence, notwithstanding the earlier Atkinson reports, is Mason’s personal review of Ryther’s performance in March 1990. She gave him the rating of “commendable,” the second highest mark possible, and indicated that “his work is done quickly and accurately; total job responsibilities are met.” Mason’s 1990 review of Ryther also stated in part: “As anchor: knows the market & key players/eon-tacts[;] he wants to put on a good product— open to trying new ideas.... As sports director — has developed good working relationship with the movers & shakers of the professional & college sports world.” With this kind of commendation written as late as March 1990, it is readily understandable how the jury could reject the prior market research of “underperformance” as the reason for Ryther’s termination.
Even assuming that the “research” allegedly relied upon included both the Atkinson reports and the 1990 Gallup Survey, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that it played little or no role in KARE ll’s decision not to retain Ryther in 1991.
This then brings us to the 1990 Gallup Survey — the market research upon which Mason and Rios Brook specifically say they relied in making the decision not to rehire Ryther.
B. Ryther’s Claims that the 1990 Gallup Survey Was Biased
Ryther testified that the 1990 Gallup Survey questions were both designed and interpreted to provide an incomplete picture of viewers’ perceptions of his performance. He initially challenged the 1990 Gallup Survey’s methods as an incomplete means of obtaining research concerning his performance.
Gallup surveyed a random sample of viewers using two methods: a “Q score technique” and open-ended questions. The Q score technique employs multiple questions to measure audience recognition and approval (particularly strong like and dislike) of the selected personalities. Ryther was among twenty-five on-air personalities included in this portion of the survey.
Open-ended questions, by contrast, allow viewers to describe identified persons in their own words, and by Gallup’s description are “designed to help [stations] gain a more complete understanding of what viewers think about key personalities.” For example, the 1990 Gallup Survey asked viewers, “How [1082]*1082would you describe Jeff Passolt? What comes to mind that you particularly like or dislike about him as a newscaster?” The ten key personalities included Rosen, Passolt, and RARE ll’s other lead anchors, among others. Ryther, however, was excluded from this portion of the research.
Ryther also notes Janet Mason’s admission that in advance of the research she told Gallup that one of the “important issues” about which RARE 11 sought information was “the sportscaster position.” Although Mason identified Passolt and Rosen as “key personalities” for purposes of the research project, she did not so characterize Ryther. Rather, she justified the omission of open-ended questions about Ryther on the grounds that their inclusion would have made the survey “too long” and that similar questions had been asked about him in 1989 research conducted by Atkinson. Mason also admitted, however, that the 1989 Atkinson project asked such “free response” questions concerning each of the ten other “key personalities.”
RARE 11 dismisses Ryther’s argument that RARE 11 designed the 1990 Gallup Survey in a manner unfavorable to him as an irrelevant argument that is “without foundation and intrusive of RARE’s business judgment.” Reply Br. at 8. RARE ll’s statement not only miseharacterizes Ryther’s attack on the survey, which is plainly a claim that the survey was biased, but is incorrect as a matter of law. As the Supreme Court unanimously observed in Bur-dine, the fact “that the employer misjudged the qualifications of the [plaintiff] does not in itself expose [the employer] to ... liability, although this may he probative of whether the employer’s reasons are pretexts for discrimination.” 450 U.S. at 259, 101 S.Ct. at 1097 (emphasis added). The jury may thus consider as wholly relevant both whether the 1990 Gallup Survey was designed in a manner that from the outset disfavored Ryther, and whether the survey was actually a sound — as opposed to pretextual — basis upon which to make employment decisions.
It remains an open question whether, standing alone, this evidence would support the jury’s verdict. But we are concerned with whether the overall evidence supports a reasonable inference that age motivated RARE ll’s actions. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 510, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. To that end, Ryther’s attack on the survey is probative. The ultimate concern, of course, is whether the employer gave an honest explanation of its behavior. See Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 38 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.1994). Yet, in the nature of things, evidence that the defendant employer says it relied on inaccurate market research may assist the finder of fact in determining whether the employer is giving an honest explanation of its actions. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 259, 101 S.Ct. at 1097.
As the district court held, the jury reasonably could have found RARE ll’s explanations to be “trivial” and inferred that the real reason defendants omitted Ryther from the open-ended questions was a fear that the results of the survey would undermine their age-based decision not to renew his contract. Relatedly, a reasonable jury might also infer that, if it was unwieldy or redundant to repeat such questions about Ryther, RARE 11 ought to have excluded such repetitious questions about Passolt and Rosen as well. In other words, a reasonable jury could have reasoned that, if it was redundant and costly to ask open-ended questions about Ryther, it was redundant and costly to ask open-ended questions about Rosen, Passolt, and the other eight “key personalities,” all of whom were included in the 1989 Atkinson research. The fact that RARE 11 did not include Ryther in this portion of the 1990 Gallup Survey reasonably suggests that RARE 11 had already decided to terminate Ryther. Moreover, as the district court stated, the long delay between the research results and the time of Ryther’s notice of dismissal reasonably suggests the defendants did not want to provide Ryther an opportunity to address his weaknesses, and thus supports the inference that RARE 11 had an age-based agenda to terminate Ryther. The jury had every right to believe that the survey was inadequate, biased, and in fact a subterfuge to mask RARE ll’s age-based animus against Ryther.
C. Mason’s Treatment of Ryther Before the Gallup Survey of 1990
The district court found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Janet Mason’s [1083]*1083decision not to renew Ryther’s contract was made before the 1990 Gallup Survey was commissioned. The evidence to this effect included Ryther’s testimony that: (1) between 1988 and 1990, KARE 11 transferred his duties to younger members of the sports department; (2) when Mason assumed her role as Ryther’s supervisor in 1988, KARE ll’s managing editor Marie Kurken told him to “watch [his] back” because Mason “was out to get” him, and he “was number one on her list, on her hit list, to get out of that news room”; (3) Mason treated Ryther as though he “couldn’t seem to do anything right”; and (4) when Mason took over, he “went from being a valued member of the news staff sports department to almost —in Janet Mason’s eyes, as an incompetent. And incidents kept happening that underlined and verified those words of Marie Kurken. It kept happening and happening and happening, so I noted them.” In addition, there was documentary and testimonial evidence that Mason, in March 1990, gave Ryther the rating of “commendable,” stating that his “work is done quickly and accurately; total job responsibilities are met,” but shortly thereafter, when notifying him of his dismissal, explained the decision as based on the showing of earlier research that Ryther was a “failure” in the market.
In McDonnell Douglas Corp., the Court observed that “evidence that may be relevant to any showing of pretext includes facts as to the [employer’s] treatment of [plaintiff] during his prior term of employment.” 411 U.S. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. As the unanimous McDonnell Douglas Court understood, evidence that the defendant treated the plaintiff, whose performance remained stable throughout the relevant period, differently upon a .change in supervisors may,- together with the elements of the prima facie case and evidence that the new supervisor “was out to get” him, support a reasonable inference that age motivated that difference in treatment. Id.; see also Hicks, 509 U.S. at 510, 113 S.Ct. at 2749 (As the Court explained, a jury’s disbelief of employer’s explanation, together with prima facie case, suffices to show intentional discrimination “particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity.” (emphasis added)).10
A jury might reasonably infer from Ryther’s . “unimproved showing” that KARE 11 felt his long-term performance justified the non-renewal of his contract. But a reasonable jury might also infer that KARE ll’s continuous approval and commendable ratings of that performance belie that claim. There exists substantial evidence that, after Janet Mason became Ryther’s supervisor (and before the 1990 Gallup Survey), KARE 11 determined that Ryther’s contract should not be renewed. Moreover, it cannot be said that no reasonable jury could have rejected as contrived Mason’s explanation that she rated Ryther favorably in March 1990 out of fear that rating him unfavorably would cause him to fall apart emotionally. Such a statement may appear untruthful to reasonable sensibilities. A reasonable jury could also infer that Mason failed to notify Ryther of his alleged deficiencies for fear that he might correct them,11 or that Mason treated Ryther as “an incompetent” because she harbored an age-based animus against him. See Hicks, 509 U.S. at 510, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. In sum, a [1084]*1084reasonable jury could infer that Mason had made a decision to terminate Ryther before the 1990 Gallup survey was conducted.
D. Ryther’s Claims that KARE 11 Had a Corporate Atmosphere Unfavorable to Older Employees
The district court relied on several portions of the record in holding that Ryther’s evidence of a corporate atmosphere unfavorable toward older employees could reasonably support the jury’s inference that Ryther was the subject of age discrimination. KARE 11 contends this evidence is insufficient, noting that statements made by employees not involved in Ryther’s non-renewal and stray remarks in the workplace do not give rise to a reasonable inference of discrimination. Not only is KARE ll’s reduction of this evidence to a few “stray remarks” factually incorrect, but, more importantly, such evidence can, if sufficient together with other evidence of pretext, support a reasonable inference of age discrimination. .As the Supreme Court stated in McDonnell Douglas:
Other evidence that may be relevant to any showing of pretext includes facts as to the [employer’s] ... general policy and practice with respect to [older persons’] employment. On the latter point, statistics as to [defendant’s] employment policy and practice may be helpful to a determination of whether [its] refusal to rehire [plaintiff] conformed to a general pattern of discrimination against [older employees].
411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. at 1825 (footnote and citations omitted).
Although Ryther did not present his ease in the form of statistical evidence, he did offer testimony suggesting KARE ll’s actions “conformed to a general pattern of discrimination” against older employees. Id. at 805, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. This evidence included: Ryther’s testimony that he was criticized for the bags under his eyes; Mason’s testimony that she once considered allowing Ryther to wear glasses because she felt they might help cover them; testimony that several older employees were suddenly given poor performance ratings and forced to choose between early retirement and demotions; testimony that others in the sports department made cutting remarks about Ryther’s age, calling him an “old fart,” an “old man,” and saying he was “too old to be on the air,” and “had no business being in the industry any more for his age”; testimony that Shaver and Mason had frequent discussions about Ryther; and testimony that Shaver complained about Ryther to Mason on ostensibly age-related grounds. In the latter connection, the following excerpt from the testimony of Edward Villaume, a former sports department intern, is illuminating:
Q: Did you ever hear Randy Shaver make comments about Tom’s age?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what comments did you hear Randy make about Tom’s age?
A: Randy Shaver called Tom Ryther an old man, an old fart, and said he was too old to be on the air.
Q: Did you hear Jeff Passolt make any comments about Tom’s age?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what comments did you hear Jeff Passolt make about Tom’s age?
A: That Tom was an old man. He called him too old to be on the air, couldn’t figure out why Randy and himself, Jeff, were not number one, and that Tom had no business being in the industry any more for his age, called him an old fart as well.
Q: Did you hear Randy Shaver make his comments on more than one occasion?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Approximately how many times did you hear Randy Shaver make those comments?
A: I would say approximately ten or more.
Q: Did you hear Jeff Passolt make those comments on more than one occasion?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And approximately how many times did Jeff Passolt make those comments?
A: Somewhere around ten. Not as often as Randy.
[1085]*1085Q: Did you ever hear Dave Levine, or Levine, make comments about Tom Ryther’s age?
A: Yes, I did. Dave would often chime right in with Randy and Jeff, or would make a comment on his own about Tom’s age.
Q: Had you ever heard Randy Shaver complain to Janet Mason in your presence?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us about what was said on that occasion when you were present when Randy complained to Janet Mason?
A: Randy had said to Janet that Tom was never around any more, that he was on the phone, and that he just wasn’t able to grasp the new computer system and couldn’t handle the, kind of the newer technology.
Q: Did you ever hear any other staff members make comments about Tom’s age?
A: Yes.
Q: And who was that?
A: Brian Singer, who was a camera man, had mentioned that more than once, and also had mentioned the fact that he could not understand how Tom was still in the business and why Randy and Jeff were not the number one anchor position there in the sports department.
RARE 11 argues that the statements referenced in this testimony were not those of persons responsible for the decision not to renew Ryther’s contract. To the extent that these statements were made outside the presence of the decisionmakers, RARE 11 is correct that they do not, standing alone, raise an inference of discrimination. Compare Frieze, 950 F.2d at 541-12 (reversing denial of defendant’s motion for JNOV) with Morgan v. Arkansas Gazette, 897 F.2d 945, 950-51 (8th Cir.1990) (affirming denial of defendant’s motion for JNOV). The evidence also reveals, however, that Shaver and Mason had frequent discussions about Ryther, and that they discussed Ryther’s ability to “grasp” some of the “newer” developments at the station. Furthermore, other evidence shows that Mason was generally responsive to Shaver’s ideas and demands, including his request that Ryther be taken off Prep Sports Extra. The jury could thus reasonably infer that Mason formed her judgment about Ryther on the basis of the discriminatory comments frequently made by Shaver, Pas-solt, Levine, and Singer, and acted on them by terminating.him.
RARE 11 dismisses the testimony of three former RARE 11 employees that the station was systematically ridding itself of older employees because those employees were dis-similarly situated and because “ ‘individual employees’ opinions of actions taken by their employer, ... in themselves, are insufficient to support [Ryther’s] argument that his age was a determining factor in his discharge.’ ” Appellants’ Br. at 35 (quoting Morgan, 897 F.2d at 950 (alteration ours)).12 As to RARE ll’s reliance on Morgan, we think Judge John R. Gibson’s opinion for this Court in Morgan supports our conclusion:
Much of the testimony recited above can be described as no more than individual employees’ opinions of actions taken by their employer, which, in themselves, are insufficient to.support Morgan’s argument that his age was a determining factor in his discharge. There was, however, evidence that, during Tinker’s administration, a pattern of employees over the age of [1086]*1086forty leaving the circulation department and being replaced by younger employees developed. As we observed in MacDissi v. Valmont Industries, Inc., 856 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir.1988), in a similar context, “[t]his fact is certainly not conclusive evidence of age discrimination in itself, but it is surely the kind of fact which could cause a rear sonable trier of fact to raise an eyebrow, and proceed to assess the employer’s explanation for this outcome.” Id. at 1058.
897 F.2d at 950-51 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). The Morgan court went on to conclude that “additional threads of evidence which can be gleaned from the record,” including a reference to a former employer as an “old ‘fuddyduddy’ [who was] not smart enough to help” his department, and one employee’s “observation of a trend away from older, more experienced employees toward younger ones,” “supported] a finding that age was a determining factor in the decision to fire” the plaintiff. Id. at 951. Thus, while the statements of sports department employees are not, “in themselves,” sufficient to uphold the district court, those statements were relevant to the jury and, together with other evidence of pretext, such as a “trend” toward younger employees, and the elements of the prima facie case, support a reasonable inference of age discrimination.
The dissent argues that the articulation of a nondiscriminatory reason (i.e., Ryther’s low ratings from the market research, which allegedly show that he performed his job unsatisfactorily) destroys one of the elements of the prima facie case. This is wrong for several reasons. First, KARE 11 has never contended on appeal that Ryther failed to make a prima facie case; second, in determining whether KARE 11 is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, it is incumbent upon the trial court and the judges of this court to give the benefit of all favorable inferences to Ryther, who is the verdict holder; third, a trier of fact, when considering all of the evidence could reasonably find that the market research and the low rating of KARE ll’s sports department were based upon KARE ll’s own admission that it did not promote sports (and that “sports was relatively unimportant”); in addition, the record contains evidence, which the jury could reasonably believe, that the 1990 Gallup Survey, upon which Mason and Brook said they specifically relied in making the decision not to renew Ryther’s contract, was biased against Ryther; fourth, notwithstanding the earlier market research, KARE 11 as late as 1990 declared that Ryther performed his job in a “commendable” way and that his “total job responsibilities are met;” fifth, notwithstanding the earlier market research, Ryther’s contract was renewed three times with substantial raises.
Clearly, under the state of this record, whether Ryther was in fact performing his job satisfactorily and whether his performance met the reasonable expectations of KARE 11 was a question of fact for the jury.
In summary, the record as a whole supports a reasonable inference that age, and not some other factor, motivated KARE ll’s decision not to renew Ryther’s contract. The plaintiff produced overwhelming evidence as to the elements of a prima facie case,13 and strong evidence of pretextuality, which, when considered with Ryther’s work environment’s [1087]*1087indications of age-based animus, clearly provide sufficient evidence as a matter of law to allow the trier of fact to find intentional discrimination. If this evidence is not sufficient for the plaintiffs case to be submitted to a jury, it is difficult to hypothecate what evidence may ever achieve the threshold standard set forth by Burdine and Hicks. And, as the experienced district court judge stated, “[i]t is clear that the jury believed Ryther’s evidence and did not believe defendants’ proffered explanation.” Ryther, 864 F.Supp. at 1517.
IY
In the alternative, KARE 11 requests a new trial. KARE 11 asserts it was prejudicial error to admit unconnected evidence and that the jury was given inaccurate and confusing instructions. We review both the district court’s admission of the evidence, O’Dell v. Hercules, Inc., 904 F.2d 1194, 1200 (8th Cir.1990), and its choice of instructions, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Eason, 17 F.3d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir.1994), for clear abuses of discretion.
A. The Evidentiary Rulings
KARE 11 seeks a new trial on the basis of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. In particular, KARE 11 challenges the admission of evidence concerning settlement agreements, “stray remarks,” and anecdotal stories of other individuals, all of which, it asserts, were unconnected to KARE ll’s decision to terminate Ryther.
A new trial based on evidentiary rulings is appropriate only when the challenged rulings were “so prejudicial as to require a new trial which would be likely to produce a different result.” O’Dell, 904 F.2d at 1200. For the reasons stated by the district court, Ryther, 864 F.Supp. at 1523-25, we do not find that to be the case here.
B. The Jury Instructions
A party is entitled to an instruction which accurately states the law and is supported by the evidence. See, e.g., EEOC v. Atlantic Community Sch. Dist., 879 F.2d 434, 436 (8th Cir.1989). The jury instructions below adhered to the Hicks standard. See Hicks, 509 U.S. at 510, 113 S.Ct. at 2749.14
KARE 11 asserts that these instructions failed to make clear that the jurors must find intentional age discrimination in order to return a verdict in Ryther’s favor. We disagree. The instructions acknowledged KARE ll’s proffered explanation for its decision and stated that Ryther was required to prove that its explanation was “merely a pretext or cover-up for intentional age discrimination.” We cannot say the [1088]*1088court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury otherwise.15
Y
KARE 11 also asks the Court to reverse the jury’s finding of willfulness and to vacate its corresponding award. The station suggests a finding that it was negligent or aware of the ADEA is insufficient, in and of itself, to support a finding of willful discrimination, and urges that the only evidence of willfulness here is testimony that KARE 11 had anti-discrimination employment policies and had instructed managers concerning how to execute those policies.
The Supreme Court has stated that a violation of section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), is willful “ ‘if the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.’ ” Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 614, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 1708, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (quoting Trans World Airlines v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 126, 105 S.Ct. 613, 624, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted in original)). Upon review, the issue is whether a rational jury could have concluded KARE ll’s conduct met this standard. Glover v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 12 F.3d 845, 848 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1647, 128 L.Ed.2d 366 (1994).
KARE 11 is correct to suggest that conduct that is “ ‘merely negligent’ ” will not support a finding of willfulness. Biggins, 507 U.S. at 615, 113 S.Ct. at 1708 (quoting McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 1681, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988)). It is also well established that our concern is not simply whether the employer acted voluntarily, but whether it consciously violated the ADEA. See Brown v. Stites Concrete, Inc., 994 F.2d 553, 560 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc); MacDissi v. Valmont Indus., Inc., 856 F.2d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir.1988). Thus, the Supreme Court has de[1089]*1089clined to hold “that a violation of the Act is ‘willful’ if the employer simply knew of the potential applicability of the ADEA.” Thurston, 469 U.S. at 127, 105 S.Ct. at 624.
That said, the employee need not, to prove willfulness, show “that the employer’s conduct was outrageous, or provide direct evidence of the employer’s motivation, or prove that age was the predominant, rather than a determinative, factor in the employment decision.” Biggins, 507 U.S. at 617, 113 S.Ct. at 1710. And, as the Biggins Court emphasized, “[i]t would be a wholly circular and self-defeating interpretation of the ADEA to hold that, in cases where an employer more likely knows its conduct to be illegal, knowledge alone does not suffice for liquidated damages.” Id.
Ample evidence supports the jury’s finding that RARE 11 “more likely [knew] its conduct to be illegal” here. The record reveals that RARE 11 had equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) policies that clearly forbade age-based discrimination, and that its managers received EEO and affirmative action training. Other testimony showed that all of RARE ll’s managers were instructed to prevent age discrimination. RARE ll’s directives spelled out that, before terminating an older employee, the manager should, document the difficulties and offer the employee help and retraining. Yet Ryther received no such assistance or offers.
This is not, however, the only evidence suggesting RARE 11 acted willfully. As noted above, Ryther testified that Mason repeatedly treated him “as though he couldn’t seem to do anything right,” and that he “went from being a valued member of the news staff sports department to almost a — in Janet Mason’s eyes, as an incompetent.” Such evidence of repeated harassment may, together with other evidence, support a finding of willfulness. See Kelewae v. Jim Meagher Chevrolet, Inc., 952 F.2d 1052, 1054 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (repeated incidents of harassment about .the quality of employee’s work in conjunction with suggestions that he retire supports finding of wilfulness). Here, further evidence showed that Mason and the others responsible made the decision not to renew Ryther’s contract prior to commissioning the 1990 Gallup Survey, but - concealed that decision from him, perhaps because they did not want to give him a chance to improve his performance. This evidence, too, supports a finding of willfulness. See Tolan v. Levi Strauss & Co., 867 F.2d 467, 471 (8th Cir.1989) (“Evidence of concealment may show the employer knew its conduct violated the ADEA.”).
As the district court stated, “[i]t is clear that defendants were more than merely aware of the ADEA statute,” and “[t]his is not a case where the employer incorrectly, but in good faith, believed that the statute permitted a particular age-based decision.” Ryther, 864 F.Supp. at 1520. The entirety of the evidence suggests they knew they were violating the law in terminating Ryther on the basis of his age. At a minimum, it suggests those responsible were recklessly indifferent to the ADEA’s requirements.
VI
The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.