("[T]he primary responsibility for deciding the appropriate amounts of [punitive] damages rests with the jury.”). Here, a jury could well have determined that Ameritech's conduct was egregious and warranted a large punitive damages award, and the district court's award of punitive damages at or near the statutory maximum was not in error. 5 . In response to the dissent, we want to emphasize that our opinion should not be read to imply that Ameritech, or any employer, can use a provision in its collective bargaining agreement to shield itself from liability under Title VII. An employer has a clear responsibility under Title VII to act reasonably to end sexual harassment and to protect its employees from harassing behavior, see Brooms v. Regal Tube Co., 881 F.2d 412, 421 (7th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>), and Ameritech’s obligations in that regard
recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding school board liable for studentonstudent harassment if school officials knew of harassment and intentionally failed to take proper remedial action holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract