discharged, they would have no need to engage in such activities. Id. at 34-35. Further, this conclusion is consistent with our case law. See David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 866 (7th Cir.2003) (rejecting the argument that the plaintiffs back pay award should be reduced to take into account a term of voluntary educational leave and holding that, had the plaintiff been properly promoted, “she would not have taken the educational leave”). Additionally, even if the defendants’ view of the evidence was a legitimate interpretation of the underlying events, we cannot conclude that the district court’s finding — that the plaintiffs’ efforts to find alternative work were reasonable — is clearly erroneous. Cf. Kasper v. St. Mary of Nazareth Hosp., 135 F.3d 1170, 1176 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). b. calculation of lost wages Riverboat also
holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it holding that testimony concerning whether employee failed to mitigate damages is a question of credibility and deferring to jurys assessment of whether or not to believe him holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others