An employer may be held vicariously liable for punitive damages under Title VII for the intentionally discriminatory conduct of its employee who has discriminated in the face of a known risk that his conduct will violate federal law, where the employee served the employer in a managerial capacity and committed the intentional discrimination at issue while acting in the scope of employment, and the employer did not engage in good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(a)(1), (b)(1). In the context of a hostile environment Title VII claim, the requirement that a supervisor must have committed the intentional discrimination at issue while acting in the scope of employment in order for the employer to be vicariously liable for punitive damages is satisfied when a supervisor with immediate or successively higher authority over the victimized employee creates an actionable hostile environment. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(a)(1), (b)(1).
Good faith efforts to comply with Title VII, for purposes of determining whether an employer is vicariously liable for punitive damages based on sexual harassment by a supervisor, may include the implementation of a written policy against discrimination and employee training regarding federal anti-discrimination laws. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(a)(1), (b)(1).
see Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 534, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999). In Kolstad, the Supreme Court rejected the rule that punitive damages are available when the discrimination is particularly egregious or severe. See Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 534–35, 119 S.Ct. 2118. Instead, the Court held that “[t]he terms ‘malice’ and ‘reckless’ ultimately focus on *460the actor’s state of mind,” id. at 535, 119 S.Ct. 2118; thus, punitive damages are appropriate at least when a person discriminates “in the face of a perceived risk that [his] actions will violate federal law,” id. at 536, 119 S.Ct. 2118. Additionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that liability for punitive damages should be imputed to the employer. See id. at 539, 119 S.Ct. 2118.