Estate of Barbara L. Reynolds v. Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor

ORDER

Neither party in this ease has filed a petition for rehearing or a suggestion for rehearing en banc.

However, a judge of this court sua sponte requested a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc.

A majority of the court has voted against rehearing the case en banc, and therefore the sua sponte request is rejected.

dissenting:

Reynolds v. MaHin, 985 F.2d 470 (9th Cir.1993), holds that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, specifically those provisions relating to awards of pre- and post-judgment interest, applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of the statute’s enactment. Today, a petition for en banc reconsideration of this decision is denied. I dissent from that denial.

I

The Reynolds opinion determines that it is unnecessary to resort to statutory presumptions regarding retroactivity because the text of the 1991 Civil Rights Act (“Act”) is “clearly” retroactive and “can only be read one way.” Id. at 478 . Of the six other circuits to consider this issue, not one has found a clear intent that the statute be retroactively applied. 1 While there is good reason to stand *691 alone in a case where every other circuit has erred, this is not such a case.

The opinion’s conclusion is based on a presumption regarding congressional silence. Although there is no statement in the Act regarding retroactive application, the Reynolds panel presumes that two provisions calling explicitly for prospective application 2 must be “exceptions to the general rule” of retroactive application. Id. at 473 .…

994 F.2d 690 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,471 , 2 A.D. Cases 881 ESTATE OF Barbara L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of Labor, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-15237. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 1, 1993. Before: FERGUSON, REINHARDT, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 Prior Report: 985 F.2d 470 . ORDER 2 Neither party in this case has filed a petition for rehearing or a suggestion for rehearing en banc. 3 However, a judge of this court sua sponte requested a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. 4 A majority of the court has voted against rehearing the case en banc, and therefore the sua sponte request is rejected. 5 BEEZER, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges HALL, O'SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON join, dissenting: 6 Reynolds v. Martin, 985 F.2d 470 (9th Cir.1993), holds that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, specifically those provisions relating to awards of pre- and post-judgment interest, applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of the statute's enactment. Today, a petition for en banc reconsideration of this decision is denied. I dissent from that denial. 7 * The Reynolds opinion determines that it is unnecessary to resort to…