retirement contributions; (3) abused its discretion by failing to compound the interest that it awarded her; and (4) abused its discretion by failing to award Saulpaugh the equitable remedy of front pay. We will address each of these contentions in turn. Given Saulpaugh’s success on her claim for retaliatory discharge, she would ordinarily be entitled to an award of back pay from the date of her termination until the date of judgment. See Dunlap-McCuller v. The Riese Organization, 980 F.2d 153, 159 (2d Cir.1992). The purpose of back pay is to “completely redress the economic injury the plaintiff has suffered as a result of discrimination.” See Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1333 (6th Cir.1988); see also Sellers v.Delgado Community College, 839 F.2d 1132, 1126 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). This award should therefore consist of lost
holding that a back pay award should make injured parties whole by placing them in the position that they would have been but for the discrimination holding there was no jury trial right where court ordered reinstatement and back pay to teachers fired after desegregation order in discrimination case back pay is equitable holding that unemployment compensation should not be deducted from a back pay award under the national labor relations act because failing to deduct unemployment payments does not make the employee more than whole recognizing equitable nature of back pay award under age discrimination in employment act holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court