Estate of Reynolds v. Martin

• Decision Date: 09 February 1993
• Docket Number: No. 91-15237,91-15237
• Citation: 985 F.2d 470
• Parties: 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,052, 61 USLW 2488, 2 A.D. Cases 512, 1 A.D.D. 579 ESTATE OF Barbara L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of Labor, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 470

985 F.2d 470

60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,052, 61 USLW

2488, 2 A.D. Cases 512,

1 A.D.D. 579

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.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 1992.

Decided Feb. 9, 1993.

Jonathan R. Siegel, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant.

Lawrence J. King, King & Green, San Francisco, CA, for appellee.

Michael Selmi, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before: FERGUSON, REINHARDT, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:

The Secretary of Labor appeals the district court's award of pre- and postjudgment interest on damages awarded to Barbara Reynolds in her wrongful discharge suit under the Rehabilitation Act. We hold that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 entitles Reynolds to pre- and postjudgment interest on her award. Thus, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-appellee Barbara Reynolds was an employee of the Department of Labor from July 1, 1979 until September 26, 1980, when she was discharged. After exhausting administrative remedies, Reynolds sued the Secretary of Labor in the district court, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. Reynolds appealed, solely with regard to her Rehabilitation Act claim. On appeal, we reversed and remanded the case for trial. See Reynolds v. Brock, 815 F.2d 571 (9th Cir.1987).

Reynolds died while the case was pending on remand. The administrator of Reynolds' estate was substituted for her as plaintiff. The parties consented to trial before a magistrate without a jury. The court found that Reynolds' discharge violated the Rehabilitation Act. Citing the remedial provisions of the Act, the court awarded back pay, with prejudgment interest, and costs including attorney's fees. Judgment was entered accordingly. The judgment stated that Reynolds was also entitled to postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

The Secretary moved for an amendment of the judgment to eliminate the award of interest. The motion was denied. The district court determined that the interest provision of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, applied to Reynolds' back pay award.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all issues in the case except the issue of Reynolds' entitlement to interest on her back pay award. Thus, the only question remaining in the case is whether an employee of the United States found to be entitled to back pay under the Rehabilitation Act is entitled to an award of pre- or postjudgment interest on that back pay.

DISCUSSION

We review the district court's award of interest on Reynolds' back pay award in light of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which became law after the district court entered its judgment in this case. We conclude that the Act applies to cases pending on its effective date and thereby entitles Reynolds to receive pre- and postjudgment interest on her back pay award under the Rehabilitation Act.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether Reynolds is entitled to interest on the back pay awarded by the district court is a question of law that we review de novo. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984).

Civil Rights Act of 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Act" or "Civil Rights Act of 1991") was signed into law on November 21, 1991. See Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991). The Act was intended, in part, "to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination." Civil Rights Act of 1991, § 3(4). Among these decisions is Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 106 S.Ct. 2957, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986).

In Shaw, the Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest was not available against the federal government under Title VII. In enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress amended Title VII to specify that federal employees are entitled to all of the remedies ordinarily available under Title VII, including payment of interest. Section 114(2) of the Act amends section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16) to provide that "the same interest to compensate for delay in payment shall be available [to federal employees] as in cases involving nonpublic parties." Nonpublic parties are liable for pre- and postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Under the amended Act, the government is similarly liable because section 114(2) of the Act provides an express congressional waiver of the government's ordinary sovereign immunity from interest on judgments entered against it. See, e.g., Hall v. Bolger, 768 F.2d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that an express congressional waiver abrogates governmental immunity from postjudgment interest).

The remedial provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1), incorporate 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 by reference. Reynolds has successfully litigated a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. Hence, if the Civil Rights Act of 1991 applies to cases pending at its enactment, it entitles Reynolds to receive pre- and postjudgment interest on her back pay award under the Rehabilitation Act.

A.

The Supreme Court has issued apparently conflicting opinions on whether--absent clear statutory direction regarding retroactivity--congressional enactments are to be presumed retroactive or only prospective in application. Compare Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974) ("[A] court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary."), with Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) ("[C]ongressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result."). The Court has noted this "apparent tension," but it has stated unambiguously that where congressional intent is clear as to a statute's retroactive or prospective application, that intent governs. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837, 110 S.Ct. 1570, 1577, 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990); see also Bradley, 416 U.S. at 711, 94 S.Ct. at 2016; Bowen, 488 U.S. at 208, 109 S.Ct. at 471. Because we conclude that the plain language of the Act is conclusive, we need not choose between the Bradley and Bowen presumptions, nor need we attempt to reconcile the cases. See, e.g., Baynes v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 976 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir.1992); Gersman v. Group Health Ass'n, Inc., 975 F.2d 886, 898-99 (D.C.Cir.1992) (holding that Bradley and Bowen are to be reconciled by distinguishing between the presumptive prospective application of substantive statutory Three provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 explicitly address the statute's applicability to pending cases. Section 402 of the Act is entitled "Effective Date." Section 402(a) states: "Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon enactment." We have held that a statement that an act shall take effect upon enactment, on its own, does not necessarily dictate that the act applies retroactively to pending cases; however, we have considered such language relevant to our holding that a statute applied retroactively because we found that the language provided "some indication that [Congress] believed that application of its provisions was urgent." In re Reynolds, 726 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir.1984) (construing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981). See also Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1302, 1304 (N.D.Cal.1992) (citing In re Reynolds in support of its holding that the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 mandates that the Act applies to pending cases).

                provisions and the presumptive retroactivity of remedial provisions.)   Under either the Bradley or Bowen approach, when Congress' intent about retroactivity is clear from the statutory language, as in this case, that language controls judicial construction.   See Kaiser, 494 U.S. at 835, 110 S.Ct. at 1575 (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))
                

Importantly, though, the language of section 402(a) goes beyond that at issue in In re Reynolds. Section 402(a) states as a general matter that the Act, as with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, is to "take effect upon enactment." That general language, however, is qualified by the clause "[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided." A bedrock principle of statutory construction requires us to find meaning in this qualifying clause: "The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, rather than to emasculate an entire section...." United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-39, 75 S.Ct. 513, 520, 99 L.Ed. 615 (1955) (quotation omitted). "[I]t is the duty of the court to give significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose, and to give effect to the statute as a whole, and not render it partially or entirely void." Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Matter of Borba, 736 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1984)).

The...