workday in both of his new, higher-paying positions. Had he only worked eight hours a day, he would have earned less than he did while employed by Riverboat, warranting back pay. We next turn to Riverboat’s claim concerning the calculation of Mr. Goodridge and Mr. Gaffney’s earnings. In all but one of his positions after being terminated by Riverboat, Mr. Goodridge earned less than he would have earned had he remained on the M/V Showboat; the only exception is 34 days in 2002, during which he worked for MTL Lines on board a tanker. He was paid $325 per day for this 34-day period, which is $36 per day more than he made while employed by Riverboat. Riverboat contends that the district court erred in failing to subtract this amount, which totals c., 936 F.2d 108, 109 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In other words, under OSHA, “[t]he award of
holding that unemployment compensation should not be deducted from a back pay award under the national labor relations act because failing to deduct unemployment payments does not make the employee more than whole holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits holding that reinstatement was insufficient to remedy a wrongful suspension and that back pay must be awarded as the amount he would have received had he been retained in his job during that period less any amount he might have earned elsewhere holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court holding that the plaintiff was entitled to back pay for the differential between unemployment compensation received and the salary he would have earned if not terminated