Please read the case study Delightfully Tackey, Yet Unrefined and answer the follwing questions:

$(1)$Punitive damages are intended to $$punish$$ defendants and act as a deterrent to such conduct in the future. What is the standard for determining if punitive damages are appropriate in a discrimination case, and how can plaintiffs demonstrate their case meets this standard?

$(2)$Can an employer avoid liability for punitive damages in a discrimination case even if company managers have violated the law? If so$,$ how?

$(3)$Did Hooters make a good faith effort to implement anti$-$discrimination policies? Use evidence from the court$$s ruling to support your answer.

$(4)$Did Hooters make a good faith effort to comply with anti$-$discrimination policies after it became aware of Ciesielski$$s sexual harassment complaints? Use evidence from the court$$s ruling to support your answer.

$(5)$A number of Hooter employees pointed to harassment as a primary reason why they left the company. If you were a member of Hooters$$ management, what strategy could you use to comply with anti$-$discrimination laws, promote ethics, and create value for the company?

Please use new answers, make it sound personable and give proper ethical analysis. Thank you.