Citation: State of Arizona v. ASARCO, No. 11 – 17484, (December 10, 2014), United States Court for Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Facts: The Plaintiff Angela Aguilar was employed at a mill facility of the defendant ASARCO, a huge copper mining company, located in Sauharita, Arizona, on December 2005. In the course of the eleven months she worked at the mill factory, Aguilera contended she suffered multiple instances of sexual harassment by supervisors and co-workers regardless of her complaints to the Human Resources Department of ASARCO and at least one manager in the factory. Angela Aguilar filed claims for sexual harassment and retaliation before the U. S. Court for the District of Arizona where, after eight day trial, the Court found ASARCO LLC liable on her sexual but not retaliation claims. The Court accepted also that she suffered no harm.
Issues: Which laws are violated and what is the proper punishment for that violation.
Analysis: As it is mentioned above, the District Court found the Defendant liable for sexual harassment of an employee at her working place under Title VII. The jury did not consider any compensable damages for Angela Aguilar but specified one dollar nominal damages for the sexual harassment and $868,750 in punitive damages. ASARCO LLC made a motion for judgment as a matter of law the district court ordered the reduction of punitive damages to Title VII’s statutory amount of $300,000 in correspondence with 42 U. S. C. par. 1981a. ASARCO LLC appealed the decision of the district court before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court discussed the case through the prism of U. S. Supreme Court’s three “guideposts”: 1.To what degree the defendant comprehends his conduct; 2. Does the punitive award correspond to the plaintiff’s actual harm; 3. The existence of criminal or civil penalties that could be compared with that in the discussed case.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard the case En Bank, discussed the topics that were contestable and affirmed the decision of the district court.
Retrieved from www.cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinion/2014/12/10/11-17484 pdf Enclosed herewith