State of Arizona v. Asarco LLC

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge HURWITZ.

OPINION

We must decide whether the Constitution permits a six-figure punitive damage award in a sexual harassment suit where the jury awarded no compensatory damages and only one dollar in nominal damages.

I

ASARCO is a large copper mining and refining company. One of its many facilities is the Mission Mine Complex, located in Sahuarita, Arizona, about thirty miles south of Tucson. This facility includes both a mine and a mill, where copper ore is crushed, filtered and refined.

Angela Aguilar began working at the Mission mill facility on December 19, 2005. Including a leave of absence, Aguilar *884 worked at the mill facility until November 8, 2006. During that time, Aguilar alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.

A

The first alleged occurrence of sexual harassment began on March 19, 2006, when Aguilar became a car loader at the filter plant. Her supervisor in this role was Wayne Johnson. Johnson was a large man — 6'2" and about 350 pounds — and according to Aguilar he made it known “at the start” that he was romantically interested…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Judge O’Scannlain’s majority opinion ably navigates the doctrinal shoals created by the Supreme Court’s constitutionalization of punitive damages. I agree with the majority that ASARCO’s conduct was reprehensible and warranted punitive damages. I also agree with the majority that a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is not constitutionally mandated in cases involving nominal damages. I differ from my shipmates only as to the final port of call. Rather than reduce the punitive damages award to $125,000, I would affirm the judgment below in its entirety because the award falls within the statutory cap on damages in Title VII.

In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that a punitive damages award violates due process if it is “grossly excessive” in relation to the government’s interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition. 517 U.S. 559, 568 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). The Court explained that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits punitive damages awards because “[ejlementary notions of fairness ... dictate that a person receive fair…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF ARIZONA; TERRY L. No. 11-17484 GODDARD, Attorney General for the State of Arizona; ARIZONA D.C. No. DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Civil Rights 4:08-cv-00441- Division, MWB Plaintiffs-Appellees,

ANGELA AGUILAR, OPINION

Intervenor-Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ASARCO LLC,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Mark W. Bennett, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 12, 2013—San Francisco, California

Filed October 24, 2013 Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Hurwitz

SUMMARY**

Employment Law / Punitive Damages

The panel vacated the district court’s award of punitive damages in a Title VII sexual harassment suit where the jury awarded no compensatory damages and only one dollar in nominal damages.

The panel held that although the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s…