State of Arizona v. Asarco LLC, 733 F.3d 882

ASARCO operates the Mission Mine Complex in Sahuarita, Arizona, where Aguilar worked from December 2005 to November 2006 and alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
Aguilar alleges supervisor Johnson pursued her daily, trained poorly when rejected, and occasionally pressed against her, causing fear of rape.
Aguilar reported harassment to HR and mill management; management allegedly told her there was nothing to be done and that she should handle it herself, leading to transfers.
During Aguilar’s tenure, the mill lacked a functioning women’s restroom, and graffiti in a portable toilet insulted her; the issue reportedly persisted through 2007.
Esquivel, a higher-level supervisor, allegedly threatened and verbally abused Aguilar; harassment continued despite some complaints.
Trial resulted in a jury finding ASARCO liable for sexual harassment, with zero compensatory damages and $1 nominal damages, and $868,750 in punitive damages; district court reduced to $300,000 under Title VII cap, which the court deemed constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a six-figure punitive award with nominal damages is constitutional	ASARCO acted with malice and recklessness, justifying a large punitive award.	Punitive award excessive given nominal damages and should be remitted within constitutional limits.	Punitive award is constitutional but must be remitted to cap ($125,000).
Appropriateness of the Gore guideposts in this Title VII case	High reprehensibility supports a large award.	Maintain ratio under due process and cap; avoid excessive punishment.	Substantial reprehensibility supports a large award, but ratio must be reasonable; remittitur required.
Use of Title VII damages cap as a civil penalty benchmark	Cap is a relevant civil penalty informing due process.	Cap should not fix constitutional ratio but set a ceiling.	Cap is a valid civil penalty benchmark; weighs toward remittitur toward cap.
Remittitur amount to satisfy due process	Allow as much as necessary to deter future egregious conduct.	Remittitur should align with highest permissible ratio per circuit precedents.	Highest permissible is $125,000; remand for remittitur to that amount.

BMW of N. America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (three Gore guideposts for punitive damages; due process limits)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (reprehensibility, ratio, penalties; physical vs economic harm)
Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2008) (nominal damages with punitive award; remittitur guidance)
Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2003) (Title VII damages cap as civil penalty; comparables)
Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2001) (reprehensibility and repeated conduct framework)
Abner v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 513 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2008) (nominal damages and cap informing permissible punitive level)
Williams v. ConAgra, Inc., 378 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2004) (cap as controlling factor in due process analysis)