Opinion ID: 203690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disparity between harm or potential harm and punitive damages

Text: Under the second BMW guidepost, we consider whether punitive damages bear a reasonable relationship to the harm that the defendant's conduct caused or is likely to have caused. BMW, 517 U.S. at 581, 116 S.Ct. 1589. While the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is relevant to this inquiry, the Supreme Court has long declined to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed. State Farm, 538 U.S. at 424, 123 S.Ct. 1513. Nevertheless, the Court has noted that in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. [14] Id. at 425, 123 S.Ct. 1513. However, the focus of our inquiry is not the ratio itself, but whether the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered. Id. at 426, 123 S.Ct. 1513. A punitive award many times the size of the compensatory award may be reasonable and proportionate in certain circumstances. For example, particularly egregious conduct that results in relatively low actual damages can support a higher ratio than conduct that is less reprehensible. Romano, 233 F.3d at 655 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see BMW, 517 U.S. at 582, 116 S.Ct. 1589. We do not have that situation here. Although the Mayor's conduct was reprehensible, it was not particularly egregious in comparison to defendants' conduct in other cases supporting substantial punitive awards. See, e.g., Davis, 264 F.3d at 91, 117 (repeated punching of mental patient); Casillas-Diaz, 463 F.3d at 82 (suspect beaten unconscious by police); Romano, 233 F.3d at 673 (intentional violation of anti-discrimination law). The Mayor was not violent and he caused no physical injury. Before detaining the employees he asked them to leave the premises. The detention itself lasted two hours. The evidence would not support a conclusion that the Mayor intentionally violated a constitutional right, as did the defendant in Romano. See Romano, 233 F.3d at 669. Conversely, where the compensatory award is substantial, a ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages larger than one-to-one may be unreasonable. State Farm, 538 U.S. at 425, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (When compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee.) In this case, although Méndez-Ayala's compensatory damages award was not excessive, it did amply compensate him for the mental distress resulting from his confrontation with the Mayor. Although not the sole determinant in the analysis, this fact supports the one-to-one ratio between the compensatory damages awarded to Méndez-Ayala and a $35,000 punitive damages award. [15]