Passantino

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge THOMAS.

Prior Report: 207 F.3d 599 .

ORDER

Part VIII B of the opinion, concerning front pay damages, has been amended.

OPINION

Defendant, Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (hereinafter CPI), a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, appeals the district court’s decision and order entering judgment for plaintiff, Jennifer Pas-santino (hereinafter Passantino), after a jury awarded her substantial damages. We affirm the district court’s decision in all respects but one. We remand for a new trial on the punitive damages issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 , 119 S.Ct. 2118 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999). With respect to the other issues on this appeal, we hold that venue was proper, that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that CPI retaliated against Passantino, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a taped interview into evidence, that the district court did not err in its jury instructions, and that the district court acted 'within its discretion in allocating all front pay, backpay, and…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I would affirm the district court judgment in its entirety. In my view, the evidence was sufficient to support a punitive damage award even under Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 , 119 S.Ct. 2118 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999). I would also hold that the Title VII limitation on damage awards does not violate the Seventh Amendment. Thus, I do not believe any remand is required.

In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.