Riddle me this: In a Title VII case a jury awards $1 in nominal damages and $868,750 in punitive damages, later reduced by the trial court to the statutory cap of $300,000. Is the award of punitive damages constitutional?
No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in State of Arizona v. ASARCO (2013). Why? The district court approved a punitive award with a ratio of 300,000 to 1. Yes, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the underlying lawsuit involved egregious acts of sexual harassment, but even such acts must be tethered to a reasonable ratio, and 300,000 to one wasn’t it. (By the way, our own Fifth Circuit, according to the opinion, specifically has rejected the applicability of a ratio in cases involving a punitive damage award and nominal damages.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]