Her estimation of damages included her annual salary and benefits broken down to a daily amount and then multiplied by the number of days between termination and trial that she had not worked at other jobs but also had not been too ill to work. That is, we do not know if plaintiff was paid weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. Plaintiff depends on Winey v. William E. Dailey, Inc. to support the court's method of calculation. In the employment context, prejudgment interest should generally be assessed upon damages only as they become due. Consequently, plaintiff's reliance on Winey is misplaced.
Defendants also misperceive the applicability of the cases upon which they rely.
For instance, they cite Chandler v. It is true that, in both contract and tort actions, courts generally calculate prejudgment interest on back pay awards separately from the date of each missed salary payment, rather than from the date of termination. Nonetheless, the Chandler court itself upheld the prejudgment interest awarded despite the fact the district court did not calculate interest on the missed wage payments as and when due. See 44 F.3d at 84. The Chandler court ultimately concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion because a fair figure for the interest had been achieved.