practices and to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges of discrimination.”) (quotations omitted); EEOC v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448, 466 (6th Cir.1999) (noting that Congress approved of damages as a tool for eradicating discrimination “when it added the remedies of compensatory and punitive damages by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991”). Circuit City’s arbitration agreement, which limits punitive damages to the greater of $5,000 or the sum of a claimant’s backpay and front pay awards, eviscerates Congress’s intent to utilize punitive damages as a tool for combating discrimination, particularly in cases where no backpay or front pay is awarded. Even if Morrison were to receive the maximum amount of b t, Inc., 816 F.2d 1104, 1108 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 259, 98
holding that a prisoners claim was saved by his request for nominal and punitive damages even though he could not recover compensatory damages under the prison litigation reform act holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under  1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages