lead, Federal courts have analogized wrongful discharge and employment discrimination cases to common-law wrongful discharge actions. See Lebow v. American Trans Air, Inc., 86 F.3d 661, 668-669 (7th Cir. 1996); Waldrop v. Southern Co. Servs., 24 F.3d 152, 156 (11th Cir. 1994); Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823, 829 (4th Cir. 1994); Gallagher v. Wilton Enters., Inc., 962 F.2d 120, 122-123 (1st Cir. 1992); Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330, 1337 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1217 (1991). In addition to the legal nature of the plaintiff’s claim in Dalis, the remedies sought in the case (compensatory and exemplary damages, interest and costs, and attorney’s fees) were predominantly legal rather than equitable in nature. See Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., supra (<HOLDING>). We note that the right to seek punitive
holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated holding that liquidated damages provision did not provide adequate remedy at law or prevent injunctive relief holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages recognizing that implicit in language of  9 allowing civil action for damages or injunctive relief or both was a plain legislative intent to afford victims of discrimination the legal remedy of compensatory damages