from his back pay award. Similarly, Mr. Gaffney lost 14 days of wages looking for work, as well as suffered miscellaneous expenses related to his termination; but, after he obtained new employment, he earned more than he did while employed by Riverboat. Riverboat submits that Mr. Gaffney’s higher salary should offset any losses he suffered while unemployed. In the context of a retaliatory discharge claim under OSHA § 11(c) — a statute which we have already explained is analogous to § 2114, see S.Rep. No. 98-454, at 12 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4831, 4842—the court will award back pay to the plaintiffs “as compensation for income that would have accrued to them had they not been wrongfully dismissed.” Donovan v. Freeway Const. Co., 551 F.Supp. 869, 880 (D.R.I.1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Martin v. H.M.S. Direct Mail Serv.,
holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to the differential between their new and old wages holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that a change between old and new rules was fundamental to a degree that impacts our jurisdiction over the plaintiffs challenges to the old rules holding under indiana law that profits are not wages and neither is a fraction of profits wages and so a bonus that is based on the performance of a plant rather than on the time or determinable output of the employee is not wages either holding that a plaintiff cannot assert a statutory claim for wages under the labor law if he has no enforceable contractual right to those wages