to this case. The EEOC does not allege that Ameritech negotiated for the thirty-day limit on disciplinary action in order to avoid Title VII obligations, nor is there any evidence in the record to that effect. Furthermore, this is not a situation where Ameritech is seeking to use its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement as an affirmative defense precluding liability under Title VII. Rather, Ameritech seeks only to introduce evidence as to its collective bargaining agreement, and its concern over the possible outcome of arbitration, to demonstrate that it did not act with the state of mind necessary for an award of punitive damages and to show that its response to Amos’s misconduct was reasonable. See Deneen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 431 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In this context, the district court erred in
holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that an employer cannot enter into an individual contract if it would result in a diminution of the employers obligations in matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that proof of discrimination offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to support a punitive damages award in light of the employers belief that its actions were required by a collective bargaining agreement holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement