JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
A jury found that the Arkansas Gazette Company willfully discriminated against John Morgan in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1982 & Supp. V 1987) (ADEA). The jury awarded Morgan back pay and liquidated damages, and the district court1 ordered reinstatement and an award of prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Gazette argues that: (1) the district court erred in not granting the Gazette’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict not only because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, but also because of certain statements of Morgan, (2) the court erred by refusing to give a “good faith” instruction to the jury; (3) the court made various evidentiary errors; (4) the court abused its discretion in ordering that Morgan be reinstated; (5) the award of front pay has been waived or is precluded under the facts; and (6) the court erred in allowing Morgan to recover both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest. For the reasons stated below, we affirm Morgan’s judgment of actual damages but reverse the award of liquidated damages because the evidence was insufficient to show a willful violation of the ADEA. We also affirm the court’s order granting Morgan reinstatement and prejudgment interest.
Morgan began working for the Gazette in 1974. After serving in various positions in the circulation department, he worked as a circulation branch manager until he was terminated in 1986 at the age of forty-four. He was fired by the city circulation manager, Tony Tinker, age thirty-three, and replaced by Brad Cromley, age twenty-eight. Morgan filed suit against the Gazette, claiming that he was discharged because of his age. He alleged a pattern and practice of age discrimination in terminations and transfers.
The Gazette argues that Morgan was terminated because of his poor performance and his falsification of sensitive documents. It claims that Morgan knowingly submitted false circulation figures to the Audit Bureau of Circulation. The Audit Bureau determines the rates that a newspaper may charge its advertisers based on the circulation figures submitted by each newspaper. Morgan admits that he submitted false circulation data but claims that his immediate supervisor, Jake Mathews, ordered him to falsify the information and that Tony Tinker, the city circulation manager, was aware of the scam. The Gazette denies Morgan’s accusation and claims that its policy is to fire all employees who falsify documents.
More detailed evidence surrounding this controversy will be set forth later as we discuss issues which make it relevant.
At the conclusion of the five day trial, the district court submitted special interrogatories to the jury. The jury’s answers to those interrogatories reveal that it found that Morgan’s age was a determining factor in the Gazette’s decision to discharge him and that it was a willful decision to discharge him because of his age. Based on these findings and the jury’s determination of damages, Morgan was awarded $35,641.40 in back pay and another $35,641.40 in liquidated damages for the willful violation. The court also ordered that Morgan be reinstated to his former position with the Gazette or a similar position because it found that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify not reinstating him. Specifically, the court observed that Morgan’s position was not a high level, unique, or unusually sensitive position and that any animosity between the parties was largely eradicated because the employees most closely associ[948]*948ated with the case were no longer working for the Gazette. In addition, the court granted Morgan’s request for prejudgment interest and rejected the Gazette’s argument that awarding both prejudgment interest and liquidated damages constituted a double recovery. This appeal followed.
I.
The Gazette asserts that it was entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a matter of law and, alternatively, that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of age discrimination. The ADEA protects individuals who are at least forty years of age from discrimination in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
We have dealt with claims of insufficient evidence in age discrimination cases on numerous occasions. It is well-established that the allocation of burdens and ordering of proof set out by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-26, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), applies to age discrimination cases brought under the ADEA. Hall v. American Bakeries Co., 873 F.2d 1133, 1134 (8th Cir.1989). Under the McDonnell Douglas guidelines:
[T]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination. Once such a showing has been made, the burden of production shifts to the employer to produce evidence showing that its actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. If the employer makes such a showing, the ultimate burden that a plaintiff must meet is to show that age was a determining factor in the actions taken by the employer.
Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., 827 F.2d 355, 357 (8th Cir.1987) (citations omitted).
Our task upon appeal of an age discrimination ease, however, is a limited one. This court will not assess the adequacy of a party’s showing at any particular stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Gilkerson v. Toastmaster, 770 F.2d 133, 135 (8th Cir.1985). Rather, we are directed to focus our attention upon the ultimate factual issue of whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee. United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Gov. v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-15, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481-82, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). Once a finding of discrimination has been made and that judgment is being considered on appeal, the McDonnell Douglas “presumptions fade away, and the appellate court should simply study the record with a view to determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support whatever finding was made at trial.” Barber v. American Airlines, 791 F.2d 658, 660 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 885, 107 S.Ct. 278, 93 L.Ed.2d 254 (1986).
In reviewing the district court’s denial of the Gazette’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we apply the same standard as the district court. Cleverly v. Western Elec. Co., 594 F.2d 638, 641 (8th Cir.1979) (per curiam). This standard requires that we:
1) consider the evidence in the light most favorable to [Morgan], who prevailed with the jury; 2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in [Morgan’s] favor; 3) assume as proved all facts which [Morgan’s] evidence tends to prove; 4) give [Morgan] the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts proved; and 5) affirm the denial of the motion if reasonable persons could differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from it.
Gilkerson, 770 F.2d at 136. This court, in an opinion authorized by Judge Arnold, discussed in detail the application of this standard in Dace v. ACF Industries, 722 F.2d 374 (8th Cir.1983), also an age discrimination case. We noted that “our precedents predominantly support the general proposition that only the evidence favoring the nonmoving party (usually, as here, the plaintiff) should be considered.” Id. at 376. We further stated that “evidence favorable to the moving party may not be considered, because if it were the court would have to pass on the credibility of that party’s witnesses.” Id. As the Supreme Court has [949]*949declared, “in passing upon whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an issue to the jury we need look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences which tend to support the case of a litigant against whom a peremptory instruction has been given.” Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 57, 69 S.Ct. 413, 415, 93 L.Ed. 497 (1949). This careful analysis by Judge Arnold in Dace has been followed by this court on numerous occasions. See Brooks v. Woodline Motor Freight, 852 F.2d 1061, 1063 (8th Cir.1988); Taylor v. Cochran, 830 F.2d 900, 902 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1009, 108 S.Ct. 1476, 99 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988); Glismann v. AT & T Technologies, 827 F.2d 262, 265 (8th Cir.1987).
Thus, our task is to apply this standard of review to determine whether the evidence supports submission of the age discrimination issue to the jury. Both parties presented evidence at trial which is totally irrelevant to the age discrimination issue. In truth, the record as a whole contains relatively little discussion of the age issue but instead appears to have served primarily as a means for the parties to ventilate their differences. It is only by painstaking study of the transcript as a whole that we are able to glean the limited references to the age discrimination issue. We must look only to this evidence with respect to the age issue, and determine whether, in the light most favorable to Morgan, giving him the benefit of all favorable inferences, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that age was a determining factor in the Gazette’s decision to discharge him.
Doyle Cates, age fifty-seven and a former assistant circulation branch manager at the Gazette currently on long-term medical leave, testified that he had discussed the subject of age discrimination with Don Davis, vice president and circulation director of the Gazette. (Tr. 173). Davis agreed that Cates had told him that Morgan had been treated unfairly and that the city circulation department was out to get rid of employees over forty. (Tr. 154). Cates observed that in the year and a half prior to his conversation with Davis, all of the older employees had left the city circulation department by transferring elsewhere, retiring voluntarily, or being forced to retire. (Tr. 173-74). He stated that there was a trend to go from older, more experienced employees to younger ones. (Tr. 174). It was his understanding that younger persons were replacing older persons. (Tr. 174).
On the other hand, Cates said in his deposition that he could not recall any particular attitude that Tinker displayed toward Morgan because of Morgan’s age, nor when Morgan began to think his termination was related to his age. (Tr. 210-11). He also declared in his deposition that he did not know whether Morgan’s termination was related in any way to his age. (Tr. 211).
Jake Mathews, age sixty-two, was home delivery manager and Morgan’s immediate supervisor at the Gazette. He denied that Tinker had told him that Tinker would force three people over age forty to quit or else he would fire them. (Tr. 229). Mathews said that he had not made such a statement to Morgan either. (Tr. 229). Mathews also testified, however, that he could not name anyone under forty who had been placed on probation during his time with the Gazette. (Tr. 747). As far as he knew, only he and Morgan had been put on probation. (Tr. 747).
Tony Tinker, age thirty-three and the city circulation manager, testified about the replacement of older employees with younger employees. He said that Charlie Roberts, age fifty-two, was transferred to the metro division and replaced with Bill Wehner, age thirty-three, (Tr. 294), and that Bill Conners, age sixty-eight, was replaced with John Yeargain, age thirty-one. (Tr. 294). Tinker also testified that Carl Peterson, who was in his fifties, was replaced by Ben Livingston, age thirty-four. (Tr. 294-95).
David Carr, a former branch manager who had worked for the Gazette for eleven years, testified that he felt his age, forty-one, had an effect on his employment at the Gazette. (Tr. 299). He felt it was a factor in his harassment and termination [950]*950by the Gazette. (Tr. 299). He said that the Gazette personnel records listed his age as forty-six when he was really forty-one. (Tr. 299). Carr testified that Tinker said that Mr. Reed, the former circulation director, was an old “fuddy-duddy” who was not smart enough to help him in the circulation department. (Tr. 321). When Carr was asked if there were other ways his age affected his employment, he responded that some younger employees were paid more than he was paid. (Tr. 329). He identified Brad Cromley as an example. He said Cromley started at a higher salary as branch manager than Carr was paid after being with the Gazette eleven years. (Tr. 329). Carr testified that Tinker hired Ben Livingston, a younger employee, and treated him better than he treated Carr. (Tr. 329). Carr also said that younger employees were given information before he received it and given longer deadlines to turn in reports. (Tr. 328).
Ed Marsh, age forty-five and a former circulation employee of the Gazette, stated that he had observed that older employees, specifically John Morgan and David Carr, were fired from the Gazette. (Tr. 365). He recalled having a conversation with another Gazette employee who told him that Morgan was fired because he was not a part of the “new wave or new movement.” Marsh could not recall who made this statement. (Tr. 367). Marsh also testified, however, that he did not recall anyone saying that age played a big part. (Tr. 370). He said that Tinker seemed to prefer to surround himself with young, inexperienced employees. (Tr. 374). Marsh said he had not initially focused on discrimination because of age because he thought that Tinker was out to fire everybody but later realized that Tinker fired only those who had been there for any length of time. (Tr. 375).
Morgan himself testified that he had told Davis, just as he had told Tinker, that Tinker was discriminating against older employees, including himself. (Tr. 414). He said that he had requested of Davis only that he have a fair hearing. (Tr. 414). Morgan testified that he met with George Van Wagner, general manager of the Gazette, after his termination and told Van Wagner that he thought his termination was due to age discrimination but that Van Wagner did not respond. (Tr. 472-73). Morgan said he felt he was in a dilemma regarding the falsified documents because, no matter what he did, he would get fired because Tinker was out to get all the older, experienced employees. (Tr. 543). He further testified that Tinker ordered him to fire Cates, age fifty-seven, and Edenfield, age fifty, and Tinker told Morgan that if he did so, his salary would be increased and his probation eased. Morgan thought it was because of Cates’ and Edenfield’s ages, experience, and salaries. (Tr. 558, 561).
Jo Ann Campbell, age forty-five and employed with the Gazette outside of the circulation department, testified that she had applied for a zone manager’s position but that it was given to Keith Sanford, who was in his early thirties. (Tr. 597). She also admitted, however, that Sanford had more experience in circulation. (Tr. 597).
Robert Kaiser, age fifty-five and a former circulation employee, testified that he had interviewed with Tinker for a branch manager’s position but did not get it. (Tr. 634). He assumed that the reason for the rejection was his age because there had never been a branch manager appointed during his time with the Gazette who was older than himself or anywhere near his age. (Tr. 634-35).
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 forty leaving the circulation department and being replaced by younger employees developed.2 (Tr. 155-60). As we observed in [951]*951MacDissi 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 reasonable trier of fact to raise an eyebrow, and proceed to assess the employer's explanation for this outcome.” Id. at 1058.
There are additional threads of evidence which can be gleaned from the record to support a finding that age was a determining factor in the decision to fire Morgan. Carr testified that Tinker hired a younger employee, Livingston, and treated him better than he did Carr, and that younger employees were given information before he received it and also longer deadlines for reports. There was testimony from Marsh that Tinker seemed to prefer to surround himself with young, inexperienced employees, and that he later realized that Tinker fired only those who had been with the Gazette for any length of time. Morgan testified that Tinker ordered him to fire Cates and Edenfield, both age fifty or older, and that Morgan’s salary and probation would benefit if he did so. Kaiser testified that there had never been a branch manager appointed during his time with the Gazette who was older than himself, fifty-five, or anywhere near his age. There was the testimony from Mathews that no one under forty had been placed on probation during his time with the Gazette, although both he and Morgan had been put on probation. There was Cates’ observation of a trend away from older, more experienced employees toward younger ones. Finally, Carr told of Tinker’s statement that a former circulation director was an old “fuddy-duddy” and not smart enough to help in the circulation department.
Although this was a close case, our task on review is not to act as the trier of fact. See Gilkerson, 770 F.2d at 136. Accordingly, we are compelled to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that age was a determining factor in Morgan’s discharge.
The Gazette argues adamantly that since Morgan admitted falsifying sensitive documents and then failed to produce evidence of persons outside the protected age group who were not discharged for the same offense, the court was required to grant the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a matter of law. This argument is without merit. In Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., we stated that the employer’s articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge does not automatically entitle the employer to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 827 F.2d at 358. “In its consideration of all the evidence the jury could still find that [the employee’s] evidence established that the reasons articulated were pretextual.” Id. We stressed this principle in MacDissi by stating that, “[a]s a matter of both common sense and federal law, an employer’s submission of a discredited explanation for firing a member of a protected class is itself evidence which may persuade the finder of fact that such unlawful discrimination actually occurred.” 856 F.2d at 1059.
This principle governs our review of the court’s denial of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this case. It was for the jury to determine whether Morgan was terminated for the reasons proffered by the Gazette, falsifying documents and poor performance, or whether such reasons were mere pretext for age discrimination, as urged by Morgan. This inquiry depends heavily on an assessment of the credibility of witnesses, a task for which the jury was particularly fit. Apparently the jury rejected the Gazette’s explanation for firing Morgan as mere pretext, and therefore, our [952]*952task upon review is to determine whether Morgan’s evidence supports a reasonable inference that he was not fired for the reasons given by the Gazette. Bell v. Gas Serv. Co., 778 F.2d 512, 516 (8th Cir.1985). We believe that the evidence here supports such a reasonable inference. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the court’s judgment awarding -Morgan back pay.
II.
The Gazette argues that the district court erred as a matter of law by refusing to instruct the jury to consider the Gazette’s good faith as an integral part of determining whether it had willfully violated the ADEA. We need not decide whether the court erred in its instructions because we believe that the evidence was insufficient to submit the issue of willfulness to the jury. Liquidated damages may only be awarded where it is established that the employer willfully violated the ADEA. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Willfulness has not been established in this case.
The Supreme Court adopted a standard for determining whether a violation of the ADEA was “willful” in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985). A violation is willful if “the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.” Id. at 128, 105 S.Ct. at 625 (quoting Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l v. Trans World Airlines, 713 F.2d 940, 956 (2d Cir.1983)). The Court rejected the notion that an employer’s knowledge that the ADEA was “in the picture” was sufficient. Id. at 127-28. The Court indicated that adopting a broader standard would lead to the undesirable result of awarding “double damages in almost every case.” Id. at 128. “Thus, in order that the liquidated damages be based on evidence that does not simply duplicate that needed for the compensatory damages, there must be some additional evidence of the employer’s ‘reckless disregard.’ ” Bethea, 827 F.2d at 359 (quoting Thurston, 469 U.S. at 128, 105 S.Ct. at 625).
We do not believe that Morgan’s evidence on the willfulness issue meets the standard established in Thurston. “Under the Thurston standard, willfulness requires more than an employer’s knowledge that the ADEA exists.” Tolan v. Levi Strauss & Co., 867 F.2d 467, 471 (8th Cir.1989). In addition, we have previously recognized that, in a disparate treatment case, such as this one, proof of willfulness requires more than just an inference from an arguable pretextual justification. Neufeld v. Searle Laboratories, 884 F.2d 335, 340 (8th Cir.1989). While Morgan did succeed in establishing that the Gazette violated the ADEA, he failed to establish that the Gazette recklessly disregarded the law. We “find nothing in the record which suggests the kind of conscious intent to violate the law which would justify a finding of willfulness.” MacDissi, 856 F.2d at 1061. Accordingly, Morgan is not entitled to liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
III.
The Gazette asserts that the district court erred by admitting certain evidence, particularly two charts used to compare Morgan’s performance with that of his successor, Brad Cromley. The Gazette asserts that Morgan used a “one day average” to assess Cromley’s performance but a different measure for his own performance and therefore, it was highly prejudicial to admit this evidence. To a great degree, the Gazette’s arguments on this point; as well as Morgan’s in response, should more properly have been addressed to the jury to aid it in assessing the probative value to give these exhibits rather than to this court. Furthermore, we have consistently held that the admission of evidence is a matter for the district court’s discretion and we will defer to the district court’s ruling absent an abuse of discretion. See Roth v. Black & Decker, 737 F.2d 779, 783 (8th Cir.1984); Radtke v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 707 F.2d 999, 1001 (8th Cir.1983). We are not convinced that there is such an abuse of discretion here.
[953]*953IV.
The Gazette contends that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring exceptional facts and circumstances which mandate denying Morgan’s request for reinstatement. We are not persuaded that there was an abuse of discretion.
The ADEA authorizes courts to order equitable relief, such as reinstatement, “as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes” of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). It “provides legal and equitable remedies to eliminate the unlawful practices and to restore aggrieved persons to the position where they would have been if the illegal discrimination had not occurred.” Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co., 695 F.2d 1093, 1097 (8th Cir.1982). The district court carefully adhered to the principles we set out in Dickerson v. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc., 703 F.2d 276 (8th Cir.1983), in ordering that the Gazette reinstate Morgan. It cited Dickerson for the proposition that “[t]he provision for equitable relief in ADEA cases is intended to effect the central statutory purpose of eradicating discrimination. Often the only way this purpose can be effected is by compelling employment.” Dickerson, 703 F.2d at 280. The court further noted that Dickerson makes clear that a request for equitable relief should be denied “only for reasons which, 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.” Id. (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2373, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975)).
The court then proceeded to discuss the evidence presented by the Gazette supporting its request for denying reinstatement and found that exceptional circumstances which would justify refusing to reinstate him did not exist. Morgan’s position was not a “high level, unique or unusually sensitive” position, Dickerson, 703 F.2d at 280, nor was there “extreme animosity” between the parties, id. at 281, because any animosity was largely eradicated since the employees involved were no longer working there.
We review the award of equitable relief only for abuse of discretion. See Cleverly, 594 F.2d at 642. The Gazette urges that the district court failed to properly consider that: (1) Morgan admitted providing erroneous information to the Audit Bureau of Circulation; (2) Morgan continually questioned managerial decisions; (3) Morgan questioned the authority and competence of the Audit Bureau of Circulation; (4) Morgan behaved in a hostile manner to Don Davis, vice president and circulation director; and (5) Morgan accepted subsequent employment at the Gazette’s competitor newspaper and fully disclosed information to them.
We reject the Gazette’s contention that the court abused its discretion by ignoring these facts. All of the points urged by the Gazette were before the court, as well as the jury, and we have no reason to believe that the court did not consider them in determining whether Morgan should be reinstated. Nor do we believe that the circumstances in this case are analogous to those justifying refusal to reinstate in the cases cited by the Gazette, Brooks v. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc., 852 F.2d 1061 (8th Cir.1988), and Coston v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 831 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1987). In Brooks, the record revealed that “there was substantial animosity between the parties, the parties’ relationship was not likely to improve, and the nature of the business required a high degree of mutual trust and confidence, which was noticeably lacking.” 852 F.2d at 1066. In Coston, the court found reinstatement inappropriate where the position required the employee to “hold himself out to the public as a managerial representative of the employer,” 831 F.2d at 1331, and the employee “served as a higher level managerial representative,” id.
Such extreme circumstances do not exist in Morgan’s case. Any antagonism between the parties here is not “substantial” and does not rise to the level of frustrating “the central statutory purposes of eradicating discrimination throughout the economy and making persons whole for injuries suf[954]*954fered through past discrimination.” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. at 421, 95 S.Ct. at 2373. We observe that, “[a]ntagonism between parties occurs as the natural bi-product of any litigation. Thus, a court might deny reinstatement in virtually every case if it considered the hostility engendered from litigation as a bar to relief.” Taylor v. Teletype Corp., 648 F.2d 1129, 1139 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 969, 102 S.Ct. 515, 70 L.Ed.2d 386 (1981).
A troublesome argument raised by the Gazette is Morgan’s admission that he provided erroneous information to the Audit Bureau of Circulation. Morgan’s explanation, however, was that he was ordered to do so by Mathews and that Tinker knew about it. This issue is not one to require entry of judgment as a matter of law, but one that the jury was required to decide. Evidence of Morgan’s questioning attitude and hostile behavior were also issues for the jury to resolve. All of these issues were thoroughly ventilated before the jury, as was Morgan’s testimony that he accepted employment with the competitor newspaper and disclosed to his new employer “what had happened at the Gazette.” (Tr. 497).
We must recognize the jury’s acceptance of Morgan’s version of the facts, and we are satisfied that it is only through reinstatement that the jury findings can be effectuated. Upon reinstatement, it will be incumbent upon Morgan to abide by policies concerning accuracy of circulation records of the new owner and operator of the Gazette.
We believe that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by Morgan’s reinstatement and therefore affirm the district court on this issue.
V.
The district court ordered that Morgan be reinstated after the jury returned a verdict in his favor. When the Gazette objected to reinstatement, Morgan filed a motion for front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Gazette argues that Morgan has waived an award of front pay as a matter of law; alternatively, the Gazette asserts that an award is precluded under the facts.
It is well-established that front pay is an equitable remedy in lieu of reinstatement. Mohawk Rubber Co., 695 F.2d at 1100. In light of our decision to affirm the district court’s order to the Gazette to reinstate Morgan, however, it is not necessary to determine whether Morgan has waived an award of front pay or whether it is precluded under the facts. Having been granted reinstatement, Morgan cannot also receive an award of front pay.
VI.
The Gazette contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in allowing Morgan to recover both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest. Since we have reversed the award of liquidated damages, we need not decide whether a prevailing age discrimination plaintiff may receive both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest under the ADEA. We affirm Morgan’s award of prejudgment interest but, as previously discussed, reverse his award of liquidated damages.
VII.
In conclusion, we affirm the district court’s order denying the Gazette a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and affirm the court’s award of $35,641.40 to Morgan for back pay based on his age discrimination claim. We also affirm the court’s order that Morgan is entitled to reinstatement and prejudgment interest. We reverse, however, the award of liquidated damages to Morgan in the amount of $35,641.40 because we believe that Morgan has failed to establish a willful violation as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the entry of an appropriate judgment, including Morgan’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees for the proceedings in district court, as well as equitable relief compensating Morgan for any additional damages sustained during the pendency of this litigation and until reinstatement.