Source: http://expertwitnesstoday.com/economic-analysis-in-employment-case-part-5/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:43:49+00:00

Document:
Loss of non-legally required benefits, estimated at 18% of salary, according to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs per Hour, September 2003, the national average non-legally required benefits as a percent of salary is 18% This figure includes paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, and retirement.
It is certainly inappropriate to consider this potential loss in employment matters. (The reduction in employer contribution is offset by reduction in employee contribution.) In personal injury matters it is less clear.
Factor, McConaghy, and Phillips, Litigation Economics, 1997.
Ireland, Horner, and Rodgers, Expert Testimony: Reference Guide for Judges and Attorneys, 1998.
Roseman and Fort, Journal of Forensic Economics, 1992.
Taylor and Ireland, Litigation Economics Review, Fall 1996, pp. 79-88.
Unused vacation: Payment for unused vacation time is recoverable as part of backpay. Vacation pay constitutes additional compensation for services rendered. [Henry v. Amrol, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4-5, 272 Cal.Rptr. 134, 136].
Backpay includes “not only the periodic monetary earnings of the employee, but also the other benefits to which he is entitled as part of his compensation.” [Wise v. Southern Pac. Co. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 600, 607, 83 Cal.Rptr. 202, 207].
vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages . . .” [Ca Labor § 227.3; see Henry v. Amrol, Inc., supra, 222 Cal.App.3d Supp. at 4-5, 272 Cal.Rptr.
Loss of Future Earnings (“Front Pay”): Damages may include, in addition to backpay, an award of the salary and benefits a wrongfully discharged plaintiff would have earned from the employment after the time of trial. [See Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (2001) 532 U.S. 843, 848, 121 S.Ct. 1946, 1949; Smith v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 503, 518, 241 Cal.Rptr. 916, 924].
Subtract these earnings from past loss and future loss.
Lifetime front pay upheld under FEHA: An award of front pay that compensated plaintiff for the remainder of her entire working life has been upheld under California’s FEHA. [See Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 996-997, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 787, 797-798–damage award upheld based on finding that plaintiff would have remained with AT&T “indefinitely” but for sexual harassment]. See also Williams v. Pharmacia.
pension, continued wages, or disability payments…” Id. at 13.
Economic analysis may be required only in assessing defendant’s financial condition. This may include computing net worth and/or business valuation. The latter, in particular, requires somewhat different methodology than what has been discussed herein.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.