Legal Opinion

Steinle v. Boeing Co.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided May 20, 1994No. 92-3149PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

This appeal raises only the issue of the retroactivity of the 1991 Civil Rights Act provision for compensatory and punitive damages, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(a)(l) (West Supp.1994), and the related right to present that claim to a jury, id. § 1981a(c), for plaintiffs asserting a claim for intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII). Because retroactivity is precluded by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), we affirm.

Dorothy S. Steinle brought this civil rights action…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Steinle v. Boeing Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1992

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
  2. Carter v. Sedgwick County, KansasCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
  3. Carter v. Sedgwick CountyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
  4. O'NEILL v. RunyonDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1995
  5. Steinle v. Boeing Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API