Crumley v. Delaware State College

• Citation: 797 F. Supp. 341
• Decision Date: 11 June 1992
• Docket Number: 91-89MMS,92-25MMS.,Civ. A. No. 90-429MMS,90-711MMS
• Parties: Naomi T. CRUMLEY, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE STATE COLLEGE, Defendant. Donald B. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. HERCULES INCORPORATED, Defendant. Karin B. KUNTZ, Plaintiff, v. PENCO CORPORATION and William D. Houser, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

797 F. Supp. 341

Naomi T. CRUMLEY, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE STATE COLLEGE, Defendant.

Donald B. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. HERCULES INCORPORATED, Defendant.

Karin B. KUNTZ, Plaintiff, v. PENCO CORPORATION and William D. Houser, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 90-429MMS, 90-711MMS, 91-89MMS, 92-25MMS.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

June 11, 1992.

Thomas S. Neuberger, Wilmington, Del., of counsel: Robert T. Vance (argued for retroactivity), of Vance & Jackson, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff Naomi T. Crumley.

Catherine T. Hickey, of Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Del., for defendant Delaware State College.

Eugene J. Maurer, Wilmington, Del., of counsel: Alan B. Epstein, of Jablon, Epstein & Wolf, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff Donald B. Robertson.

Thomas R. Hunt, Jr., of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Del., for defendant Hercules Inc.

Vivian A. Houghton, Wilmington, Del., of counsel: Donald C. Holmes, and Maryan Ramey, of Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, Easton, Md., for plaintiff Karin B. Kuntz.

Somers S. Price, Jr., and Kathleen Furey McDonough, of Potter Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Del., of counsel: Arthur M. Brewer, and Patrick M. Pilachowski (argued against retroactivity), of Shawe & Rosenthal, Baltimore, Md., for defendants Penco Corp. and William D. Houser.

OPINION

MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, Senior District Judge.

Presently before the Court is whether the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 hereinafter the "Act" or the "1991 Act" applies retroactively to three separate pending cases.¹ On May 28, 1992, the Court heard consolidated oral arguments on this issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes: (1) plaintiffs are not entitled to retroactive application of section 102 permitting compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial; (2) the above conclusions apply to cases involving conduct occurring prior to the enactment of the 1991 Act irrespective of whether suit was filed in federal court prior to or subsequent to the Act's enactment.

I.

Crumley v. Delaware State College, Nos. 90-429/90-711-MMS, involves two consolidated cases. Plaintiff, Dr. Naomi T. Crumley ("Crumley"), a Black American, alleges Delaware State College (the "College") denied her a promotion to Professor in the spring of 1988 because of her race. Plaintiff alleges she was then denied reinstatement to the position of Associate Professor of Education and was denied full sick leave benefits in retaliation for her having filed a charge of discrimination against the College as a result of the College's failure to promote her to Professor in the Spring of 1988. Plaintiff makes the final allegation that the College has a pattern and/or practice of failing to promote blacks to Professor. Plaintiff urges the 1991 Act should be applied retroactively and seeks to amend the Complaint to demand a jury trial and to ask for compensatory and punitive damages up to the limits specified in section 102 of the Act.

In Kuntz v. Penco Corp., No. 92-25-MMS, plaintiff Karin B. Kuntz ("Kuntz") filed a Complaint in federal court on January 15, 1992. Plaintiff had been employed by defendant, Penco Corporation ("Penco"), from May 27, 1986 to November 27, 1990. Following employment termination by Penco, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After receiving a Right to Sue Notice from the EEOC, plaintiff filed this civil action alleging sexual harassment against Penco and its employee William D. Houser, seeking to recover damages for violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Defendant has moved to strike, or in the alternative to dismiss, three parts of plaintiff's Complaint asking for compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial. Plaintiff urges because she filed suit in federal court several months after the enactment of the 1991 Act she is entitled to have the Act applied in full to her case even though the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred before the Act's enactment.

Finally, in Robertson v. Hercules, Inc., No. 91-89-MMS, plaintiff, Donald Robertson ("Robertson"), filed his Complaint in this Court on February 22, 1991, charging defendant Hercules, Inc. ("Hercules"), with violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA"), the Delaware Fair Employment Practices Act, 19 Del.C. § 710, et seq., the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and the public policy of the State of Delaware, in that he was forced to retire because of his age after 37 years with defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification urging section 107 of the Act should be applied to pending ADEA cases.

II.

Crumley v. Delaware State College, Nos. 90-429/90-711-MMS presents the issue of whether the 1991 Civil Rights Act should be applied retroactively with respect to the Act's provisions involving compensatory and punitive damages and the right to demand a jury trial. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was signed into law on November 21, 1991. The Act is a comprehensive bill designed to expand certain remedies available to victims of discrimination and to undo the effects of recent Supreme Court decisions.² Section 102 authorizes compensatory and punitive damages in Title VII intentional discrimination cases. That same section also authorizes jury trials. Accordingly, if the Act is applied retroactively a plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages and a jury trial and may also be entitled to punitive damages.³

In determining whether the 1991 Act applies retroactively, "the starting point for interpretation of a statute `is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.'" Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 835, 110 S.Ct. 1570, 1575, 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990) (quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980)). While there are no provisions in the 1991 Act stating specifically whether or not the damages and jury sections of the Act apply to cases already pending in federal court, there are three sections of the 1991 Act that are potentially relevant to the analysis of retroactivity: Sections 402(a), 402(b) and 109(c).

SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General. — Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon enactment.

(b) Certain Disparate Impact Cases. — Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall apply to any disparate impact case for which a complaint was filed before March 1, 1975, and for which an initial decision was rendered after October 30, 1983.

Section 109(c) Application of Amendments. — The Amendments made by this section shall not apply with respect to the conduct occurring before the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that the language of Section 402(a) is susceptible to several meanings:

The fact that the 1991 Act becomes effective on the date of enactment provides no guidance as to whether the Act applies to pending cases. Indeed, this clause section 402(a) is susceptible to several interpretations: it might mean that the 1991 Act applies to conduct which occurred after the enactment, it might mean that the Act applies to cases filed after the enactment, it might mean that the Act applies to all proceedings beginning after the enactment, it might mean that the Act's provisions apply to all pending cases at any stage of the proceedings, or it might mean that the Act's procedural provisions apply to proceedings begun after enactment and the substantive provisions apply to conduct that occurs after the enactment.

Mozee v. American Commercial Marine Serv. Co., 963 F.2d 929, 932 (7th Cir.1992).

It is clear the express language of Section 402(a) does not resolve the retroactivity question.

Despite the inherent ambiguity of Section 402(a), plaintiffs urge that reading clauses (a) and (b) of section 402 and section 109(c) together makes it clear that the Civil Rights Act applies to cases which were pending at the time of its enactment. Sections 402(b) and 109(c) carve out exceptions to the Act. The Supreme Court has stated on many occasions that "no provision of a statute should be construed to be entirely redundant." See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 778, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 1550, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988); see also Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73, 111 S.Ct. 415, 419, 112 L.Ed.2d 374 (1990). According to plaintiffs, if the Civil Rights Act only applied prospectively, sections 402(b) and 109(c) would be meaningless. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 837, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 2189, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (noting Supreme Court's hesitancy "to adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same law."); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-39, 75 S.Ct. 513, 520, 99 L.Ed. 615 (1955) (citations omitted) ("`The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy.' ... It is a court's duty `to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute,' rather than to emasculate an entire section....").

Another fair reading of section 402(b), however, is that because that section was inserted in the 1991 Act to ensure that the Act's provisions would not apply to the parties in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989), "Section 402(b) is nothing more than a clear assurance that courts would not apply the 1991 Act to the Wards Cove litigation regardless of how the courts might eventually construe the 1991 Act's applicability to pending cases." Mozee, 963 F.2d at 933.⁴ Simila...