care of later on as things progressed”); Reilly Test., Tr.III at 162 (stating that wiring was not in compliance with governing regulations, but "[i]n the short term, absolutely, it was very safe”; also testi fying that the crew’s long-term intention was to bring the wiring "up to code”). 31 . For example, at trial, the defendants posited that the plaintiffs were terminated because of "a pattern of disruptive activity.” Gour-guechon Test., Tr.IV at 19. The defense also claimed that all the plaintiffs were involved in some form or another in the rewiring inci there is no indication that Riverboat assumed the availability of punitive damages in the course of calculating its proposed damages. 33 . See also Brown v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 968 F.2d 1220, 1992 WL 161045, at *2 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 34 . See Reich v. Cambridgeport Air Sys.,
holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that it is within the courts discretion to award both reinstatement and punitive damages for violation of  2114 although finding that the district courts decision not to award such remedies did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages