With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ratio “would utterly fail to” punish and deter the defendant); Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d 994, 1016 (5th Cir.2003) (stating that “any punitive damages-to-compensatory damages ‘ratio analysis’ cannot be applied effectively in cases where only nominal damages have been awarded”); Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n v. Pelella, 350 F.3d 73, 88 (2d Cir.2003) (stating that “the ratios referred to in [State Farm] may not apply with equal force when punitive damages are compared to nominal damages”); DiSorbo v. Hoy, 343 F.3d 172, 187 (2d Cir.2003) (noting that, when nominal compensatory damages are awarded, “ ‘the use of a multiplier to assess punitive damages is not the best tool....’” (quoting Lee v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 805, 811 (2d Cir.1996))); Lee, 101 F.3d at 811 (<HOLDING>); Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F.Supp.2d 843, 871

A: holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated
B: holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies
C: holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages
D: holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages
A.