holding, in the context of a pending case, "that the 1991 Act does not govern the instant case which involves conduct that occurred before the 1991 Act became law"
How later courts described this case
- holding, in the context of a pending case, "that the 1991 Act does not govern the instant case which involves conduct that occurred before the 1991 Act became law"
- noting with approval that the affirmative action plan required “the hiring only of qualified blacks 23 and women; it [did] not require the selection of unqualified blacks or women over qualified white males” (emphasis in original)
- holding that 1991 Act did not apply retroactively to plaintiff's claim for damages resulting from hiring policy adopted pursuant to 1981 consent decree
- noting with approval that the affirmative action plan required “the hiring only of qualified blacks and women; it [did] not require the selection of unqualified blacks or women over qualified white males” (emphasis in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the court’s conclusion that Richard Vogel is without standing to contest the validity of the 1981 consent judgment and has suffered no deprivation of any right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as a result of Cincinnati’s affirmative action hiring policy. I also concur, therefore, in the court’s judgment of affirmance.
I decline, however, to join the court’s holding that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , “does not apply retroactively to Vogel’s claim for damages resulting from the hiring policy the City’s Police Division adopted pursuant to the consent decree.” The basis for the court’s ruling does not rest upon any consideration peculiar to Vogel’s claim, but rather upon a more universally applicable analysis of the statute’s retroactivity under general principles of statutory construction.
It may be that the court is correct in its conclusion that the Act is not retroactively applicable to Vogel’s claims, but the issue of the retroactivity of the Act in general, or, if retroactive, its applicability to this case in particular, has not been raised, briefed, or fully argued by the parties.
I would not pass upon that very significant question without full briefing and proper submission of the issue.