With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence of its good faith Title VII compliance efforts, and vacated the punitive damage award. The court endorsed UPS’s argument that Fischer “[could not] rely solely upon [UPS]’s failings with regard to him to rebut cognizable evidence” of good faith. Id. Based on its reading of Sackett v. ITC Deltacom, Inc., 374 F.Supp.2d 602 (E.D.Tenn.2005), it concluded that Kolstad required consideration of “the employer’s historical approach to such claims.” Id. We do not understand Sackett or Kol-stad as requiring such a holding, nor do later Sixth Circuit cases. Indeed, none of this court’s cases vacate a jury award of punitive damages or specify the precise showing required to establish good faith as a matter of law. See West v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 374 Fed.Appx. 624, 639-641 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Parker, 491 F.3d at 604-05 (same); Tisdale,

A: holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith
B: holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint
C: holding that judgment as a matter of law was proper when the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant was motivated by the eeoc complaint knowledge is necessary to establish causation but it is not sufficient
D: holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law
D.