With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". are not clearly erroneous, and it did not abuse its discretion in awarding back pay and a limited amount of front pay where the jury determined that such a remedy was warranted by the facts. See Selgas, 104 F.3d at 12 (A court’s decision to uphold a jury’s award of damages is within the district court’s discretion, and we will not disturb this discretion unless we find “strong evidence of a lapse in judgment.”). (2) Punitive damages This circuit has held that under federal law the evidence of intent that is necessary to support a punitive damages award “is the same [evidence of] ‘intent’ that is required for a finding of discrimination in the first place.” Dichner v. Liberty Travel, 141 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.1998) (citing Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 205 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>)). Rowlett, relying on Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S.

A: recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award
B: holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge
C: recognizing that the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable
D: holding that a hearing on a motion to amend to allege punitive damages is not necessary
C.