- 11 -
relief pursuant to title VII of the CRA of 1964, and the damages
petitioner ultimately received were in settlement of her
individual title VII claim under the 1964 legislation.9 The
Settlement Agreement and General Release, which petitioner and
State Farm entered into on January 30, 1992, also clearly
provided that petitioner's settlement award represented backpay
that petitioner would have received had she been hired as a State
Farm agent, a 6-month award of front pay, and an "incentive cash"
payment. No reference is made in the complaint or the settlement
agreement to either compensatory or punitive damages.
In any event, the 1991 amendments to title VII do not apply
to this litigation, notwithstanding that petitioner's settlement
agreement with State Farm was signed after the effective date of
these amendments.10 In Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S.
244, 281-286 (1994), the Supreme Court held that the amendments
to title VII providing for compensatory and punitive damages do
not have retroactive application to cases which were pending on
appeal when the statute was enacted. In the instant case,
petitioner's own Final Claim Form indicates that the conduct
which gave rise to petitioner's cause of action occurred between
9Indeed, the complaint in the Kraszewski litigation was
titled "Complaint for Back Pay, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
(Civil Rights Class Action)".
10The effective date of the amendments was Nov. 21, 1991.
See Civil Rights Act of 1991, sec. 402(a), 105 Stat. 1099.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011