The Court, in its broad discretion, finds the use of the average prime rate, compounded monthly, proper. See, e.g. Gracia v. Sigmatron Int'l, Inc., 130 F.Supp.3d 1249, 1263 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2015) (using 3.25 percent (compounded monthly) because “that was the prime rate for almost the whole prejudgment period in this case, except for a few weeks when it was 3.61 percent”); Sheils v. GateHouse Media, Inc., No. 12 CV 2766, 2015 WL 6501203, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015) (using the average of the prime rate in effect for the years in question, which was 3.25 percent); Geraty v. Village of Antioch, No. 09 C 6992, 2014 WL 1475574, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 15, 2014) (“Courts generally apply the monthly average prime rate.”); see also Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 325 F.3d at 938 (““Compound interest generally more fully compensates a plaintiff[.]”).

remains as to the appropriateness of plaintiff's requested relief on the specific facts of this case. As to plaintiff's request for instatement, factors to consider are: (1) the effect on innocent employees who may be “bumped” to accommodate the plaintiff's instatement or reinstatement, Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1996); (2) administrative costs, including the time and money of litigants and judges devoted to administering a continuing remedy, Avitia, 49 F.3d at 1231; (3) reduction in enterprise's productivity caused by “locking parties into an unsatisfactory employment relation, ” id.; (4) the relationship between the employer and plaintiff and whether the relationship was acrimonious, McKnight v. Gen. Motors Corp., 973 F.2d 1366, 1368 (7th Cir. 1992); and (5) whether the plaintiff is gainfully employed in her field of work at comparable level of pay, Sheils v. Gatehouse Media, Inc., No. 12 CV 2766, 2015 WL 6501203, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015).

Thus, the question remains as to the appropriateness of plaintiff's requested relief on the specific facts of this case. As to plaintiff's request for instatement, factors to consider are: (1) the effect on innocent employees who may be "bumped" to accommodate the plaintiff's instatement or reinstatement, Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1996); (2) administrative costs, including the time and money of litigants and judges devoted to administering a continuing remedy, Avitia, 49 F.3d at 1231; (3) reduction in enterprise's productivity caused by "locking parties into an unsatisfactory employment relation," id.; (4) the relationship between the employer and plaintiff and whether the relationship was acrimonious, McKnight v. Gen. Motors Corp., 973 F.2d 1366, 1368 (7th Cir. 1992); and (5) whether the plaintiff is gainfully employed in her field of work at comparable level of pay, Sheils v. Gatehouse Media, Inc., No. 12 CV 2766, 2015 WL 6501203, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015). For reasons already explained in the court's summary judgment decision, these factors caution strongly against instatement.

Moreover, a plaintiff's gainful employment since the employer's unlawful act may factor against a reinstatement order, particularly if her current pay and benefits exceed those in the past position. See Sheils v. Gatehouse Media, Inc., No. 12 CV 2766, 2015 WL 6501203, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015) ("[T]he fact that [plaintiff] has for the past three years been gainfully employed in her field of work at a pay greater than one of the positions she sought at [her former employer] weighs in favor of finding that reinstatement is not appropriate in this case.") (citing McKnight, 973 F.2d at 1372)). In response to defendant's argument against such equitable relief, plaintiff does not present specific facts regarding the appropriateness of a reinstatement order.

25 percent (compounded monthly) because "that was the prime rate for almost the whole prejudgment period in this case, except for a few weeks when it was 3.61 percent"); Sheils v. GateHouse Media, Inc. , 2015 WL 6501203, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015) (using the average of the prime rate in effect for the years in question, which was 3.25 percent).

Third, Plaintiff offers no evidence that her old job is available at the Joliet facility. See Sheils v. Gatehouse Media, Inc., 2015 WL 6501203, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015) (denying reinstatement where Plaintiff "offered no evidence that [her old] position * * * is currently available at [her former employer] or that an innocent employee would not be harmed by [plaintiff's] reinstatement"). Likewise, she provides no support for her argument that she could be assigned an HR position at Volvo.

We have found no precedent supporting the $2 million award here, which is so large as to shock the judicial conscience.¶ 94 The City asks us to remit the $2 million award to $60,000, and it cites in support Sheils v. Gatehouse Media, Inc., 2015 WL 6501203 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 27, 2015). In Sheils, the plaintiff worked for local suburban newspapers published by GateHouse Media Suburban Newspapers, Inc. Id. at *1.