Collecting annotations from human raters often results in a trade-off between the quantity of labels one wishes to gather and the quality of these labels. As such, it is often only possible to gather a small amount of high-quality labels. In this paper, we study how different training strategies can leverage a small dataset of human-annotated labels and a large but noisy dataset of synthetically generated labels (which exhibit bias against identity groups) for predicting toxicity of online comments. We evaluate the accuracy and fairness properties of these approaches, and trade-offs between the two. While we find that initial training on all of the data and fine-tuning on clean data produces models with the highest AUC, we find that no single strategy performs best across all fairness metrics.