context: Even if the jury's punitive damages award could not withstand due process review, if only "proportionality" and "reprehensibility" were considered, the jury's award does withstand due process scrutiny when "deterrence" is considered. The jury's punitive damages award is appropriate to deter a company of the size and with the financial resources of ASARCO from similar conduct in the future, particularly in a case in which there is evidence that ASARCO is a serial violator of antidiscrimination laws.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 540 F.3d 1122, 1122
citation_a.parenthetical: considering, in a constitutional excessiveness analysis, whether a small award would be "sufficient to deter other [defendants] from engaging in similar conduct in the future"
citation_a.sentence: See Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1122 (considering, in a constitutional excessiveness analysis, whether a small award would be “sufficient to deter other [defendants] from engaging in similar conduct in the future”); see also Bains, 405 F.3d at 775 (post-BMW case considering, in an excessiveness analysis, whether a jury could properly have concluded that the defendant failed to remedy or address the effects of discrimination, so that punitive damages were necessary to prevent such discrimination from occurring in the future).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 405 F.3d 775, 775
citation_b.parenthetical: post-BMW case considering, in an excessiveness analysis, whether a jury could properly have concluded that the defendant failed to remedy or address the effects of discrimination, so that punitive damages were necessary to prevent such discrimination from occurring in the future
citation_b.sentence: See Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1122 (considering, in a constitutional excessiveness analysis, whether a small award would be “sufficient to deter other [defendants] from engaging in similar conduct in the future”); see also Bains, 405 F.3d at 775 (post-BMW case considering, in an excessiveness analysis, whether a jury could properly have concluded that the defendant failed to remedy or address the effects of discrimination, so that punitive damages were necessary to prevent such discrimination from occurring in the future).