The jury returned a verdict in favor of Burger on both counts against the union. The union renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The district court denied that motion as well. The district court entered judgment on the verdict. However, the parties and the district court had some difficulty in reconciling the jury’s award of damages. The district court reduced the jury’s award of damages in order to avoid the possibility of a duplicative recovery for lost back wages. The district court then doubled the back pay award as liquidated damages under the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (“[L]iq-uidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter.”); Rose v. Hearst Magazines Div., The Hearst Corp., 814 F.2d 491, 493 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the district court awarded
holding that where a jury returned with a unanimous finding of no proximate cause but could not reach a unanimous finding on the question of negligence the jury verdict was simple to harmonize and such a finding compelled a judgment for defendant internal quotation marks omitted holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that a jury verdict finding adea retaliation is inconsistent with a finding of nonwillful discrimination holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record