United States: A Report On The Ninth Circuit Oral Argument In Arizona v. ASARCO

Earlier this month, our colleague Evan Tager posted about Arizona v. ASARCO, in which the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc to consider how courts should review punitive damages for excessiveness in Title VII cases.  Evan's prior posts on the case are here and here.  On June 18, the en banc panel heard oral argument.

In a lively 72-minute session led by Chief Judge Kozinski, the panel grappled with a host of interesting issues—including the role of the Due Process Clause in limiting punitive damages in the face of a legislatively imposed cap, the relevance of the ratio guidepost when the jury has awarded nominal damages, and the complexities presented by a single cap that limits punitive and certain compensatory damages.  Our takeaway from the argument (recording available here) is that the Ninth Circuit panel was skeptical of ASARCO's contention that the punitive award should be reduced beyond the $125,000 that the original panel majority deemed appropriate.  In fact, there is a real possibility that the court may reinstate the district court's punitive award of $300,000—the maximum permitted under Title VII.

Several members of the panel seemed inclined to the view that the Constitution does not come into play at all when Congress has established a cap on punitive damages—at least when the cap is low enough to impose a meaningful limit.  Indeed, Chief Judge Kozinski—echoed by other judges on the panel—suggested that the Due Process Clause is relevant only when there is no other upper limit on punitive damages.  He asked why the courts should, in his words, not simply "check out" instead of further reviewing punishments for excessiveness when Congress has set a statutory maximum.

That suggestion strikes us as backwards.  As the Second Circuit recently observed in the Payne case mentioned in one of Evan Tager's previous posts, a federal trial court reviewing a jury award for excessiveness and a federal appellate court reviewing a district court's determination on that question have "considerably more supervisory authority than the Supreme Court has over the decisions of the highest courts of a State" under the Due Process Clause, and, in the exercise of that authority, "bear the responsibility to ensure that judgments as to punitive damages . . . are not excessive." Abdication of that responsibility merely because Congress has enacted a statutory ceiling would thus ignore the courts' general obligation under federal common law to police excessive awards.

The hands-off approach suggested by Chief Judge Kozinski would also be inconsistent with the Seventh Circuit's analysis in the Hennessy case discussed in Evan's previous posts, in which the court observed that Congress "did not want Title VII awards, especially of punitive damages, to be excessive as they can be in other areas of the law."  Because the mere enactment of a cap hardly means that Congress would approve of every Title VII punitive award that is at the statutory maximum, the courts still have a fundamental role to play in reviewing awards within the range permitted by Title VII for excessiveness.  Indeed, counsel for Arizona acknowledged during the argument that courts have the authority to lower Title VII punitive damages awards below the statutory cap.

In Hennessy, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that the maximum permissible award available under Title VII "should be reserved for egregious cases."  Counsel for ASARCO ran with this point, explaining that because Congress has set $300,000 as the maximum punishment, the court should reduce the punitive damages below the cap—and sometimes substantially below it—when the defendant's conduct is not at the high end of the reprehensibility spectrum.  Chief Judge Kozinski dubbed this approach a "compression regime"—because the maximum punishment for the very worst conduct is set at $300,000 (or less if the jury has awarded compensatory damages), and the effective cap for less terrible conduct is proportionately lower.

The Chief Judge contrasted that scenario to a "non-compression regime" in which courts would apply the $300,000 cap "on the back end"—meaning that they would first determine whether a punitive award is excessive without any reference to the cap, reduce the award accordingly, and then simply lop off any remaining amount above the cap.  As Chief Judge Kozinski undoubtedly recognized, because juries in Title VII cases commonly award more than $300,000 in combined compensatory and punitive damages, the "non-compression" approach would cluster punitive damages awards for conduct that varies widely in reprehensibility at the maximum permitted by statute, instead of reserving higher amounts of punitive damages for cases involving more abhorrent conduct.  Thus, although the Chief Judge seemed quite skeptical of the "compression regime" when he questioned ASARCO's counsel about it, he also challenged plaintiff's counsel to explain why it would not be sensible for courts to ensure that any punishment imposed under Title VII is proportionate to the reprehensibility of the misconduct as compared to other cases.

Questioning whether any effort to ensure such proportionality was workable, Judge Berzon and others referred repeatedly to what they deemed the "inverse" relationship between compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII.  Because Title VII idiosyncratically caps the combined total award of both compensatory and punitive damages, these judges observed that the more harmful a defendant's conduct (and therefore the higher the amount of compensatory damages), the lower the punitive damages available to a plaintiff.  This perplexing feature of the Title VII cap, they implied, indicates that a reviewing court should simply ensure that the combined compensatory and punitive damages do not exceed $300,000 (or the lower cap applicable to smaller employers), and leave it at that.

But the statutory scheme is not as irrational as that line of questioning would suggest; nor does it authorize reviewing courts to abstain from exercising judgment.  As counsel for the EEOC pointed out, the cap applies only to compensatory damages that are difficult to quantify, such as emotional-distress damages.  And as the Supreme Court explained in State Farm, compensatory damages of this nature already contain a "punitive element."

It is thus entirely sensible for courts to evaluate whether all elements of damages under the under Title VII cap—particularly the emotional-distress damages that juries have so little experience quantifying—are excessive in light of the harm to the plaintiff and the reprehensibility of the conduct at issue.  As the Seventh Circuit pointed out in Hennessy, in most employment-discrimination cases, an appropriate total combined award of compensatory and punitive damages will be far less than the statutory maximum.  In other words, the $300,000 ceiling does not represent a pool of money merely to be allocated between compensatory and punitive damages for any prevailing Title VII plaintiff.

One last note:  Towards the close of argument, counsel for ASARCO urged that, because the jury awarded compensatory damages of $1, any award of punitive damages should be less than $2,500—the same ratio of 2500-to-1 that was approved of in a prior Ninth Circuit decision involving an award of nominal compensatory damages.  Our take from the argument is that ASARCO is unlikely to be so lucky.  The court seems poised to downplay the relevance of the precise ratio between compensatory and punitive damages in Title VII cases, at least in cases in which compensatory damages are minimal.  Nonetheless, some of the judges on the panel appeared to recognize that some measure of proportionality is still required in Title VII punitive damages awards, and for the reasons we've discussed in our previous posts on the case, the Ninth Circuit should hold that the panel majority's award of $125,000 was excessive as a matter of federal common law.

As always, stay tuned—we will report on the Ninth Circuit's decision once it is issued.

Originally published June 21, 2014.

Tags: Common-law Excessiveness

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.