that prejudgment interest is potentially available made such determinations irrelevant. 491 F.Supp.2d at 308. At the parties’ request, the Court now addresses these issues, which have been fully briefed. As described above, the Court found that prejudgment interest was available against USPS because such an award is a normal incident to an award of damages for breach of contract. However, punitive damages differ from prejudgment interest in that “punitive damages, unlike compensatory damages and injunction, are generally not available for breach of contract.” Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 187, 122 S.Ct. 2097, 153 L.Ed.2d 230 (2002). See also U.S. for Use and Benefit of Evergreen Pipeline Const. Co., Inc. v. Merritt Meridian Const. Corp. (“Evergreen”), 95 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Durham Industries, Inc. v. North River Ins.
holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages holding punitive damages available for retaliatory claim under flsa holding that punitive damages are not fines holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract