Retroactivity of 1991 law still debated
Article Abstract:
Legislative intent as to the retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 is unclear and federal circuits have disagreed on the issue. Interpretive legislative memoranda from the time the law was being considered do not make matters any clearer. Retroactivity is a key issue because many employment discrimination cases currently before appellate courts stem from things which happened before the law was enacted. Moreover, the Supreme Court has not clarified what the presumption on retroactivity or prospectivity is in the case of a law with no specific statement on the issue.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Rights act's retroactivity still disputed
Article Abstract:
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 could affect thousands of cases pending in federal courts and agencies if it is applied retroactively. Legislators did not resolve the question when the bill was passed, and court precedents on retroactive application of legislation are contradictory. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated that it will not retroactively apply the damages provisions of the new act. Ultimately, however, the retroactivity of the new legislation must be decided by the Supreme Court.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Adjudicative retroactivity in administrative law
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's application of adjudicative retroactivity which was embodied in SEC v Chenery Corp was refined into a two stage test in Chevron U.S.A. Inc v National Resources Defense Council Inc. The test allows the determination of whether the adjudication creates or merely applies the law. Adjudication that interprets Congressional intent in making a decision which would apply retroactively should be allowed to stand but only when based on sources that sufficiently demonstrate that intent.
Publication Name: Supreme Court Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0081-9557
Year: 1991
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Refugee law still needs fix. It's cosy in the castle with the drawbridge up. Anti-immigrant bill flouts U.N. agreement
- Abstracts: The debate over mandatory arbitration in employment disputes. Arbitration in public sector labor disputes
- Abstracts: Strict liability of individuals under CERCLA: a normative analysis. Putting the remedial cart before the statutory horse: the Ninth Circuit reopens debate on CERCLA's definition of disposal
- Abstracts: Security Regulation: A State-By-State Update. What's on the Security Horizon
- Abstracts: Title VII as the regulation of the secondary effects of speech. Farm workers, boycotts, and free speech