acted in conscious disregard of that risk. See Marshall v. Sam Dell’s Dodge Corp., 451 F.Supp. 294, 301 (N.D.N.Y.1978) (“The defendants’ practice of knowingly maintaining inaccurate time records which greatly understated the number of hours worked by their sales personnel permits only one conclusion; i.e. the violations of the Act were willful.”). We conclude, however, that any error in the court’s ruling was harmless. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61 provides that “[n]o error in the admission or exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling ... is ground for ... disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 61; see also Gandy v. Sullivan County, 24 F.3d 861, 866 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). “Plainly Rule 61 teaches that the proceedings
holding exclusion was harmless error holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error holding that judges comments to jury during equal pay act trial were harmless error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that to establish a prima facie equal pay act claim the plaintiff must show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal