Opinion ID: 1456313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Retroactive Application of the VBIA

Text: Middleton's next argument is that even if § 1658 applied to his USERRA claim when he filed it, Congress's recent enactment of the VBIA saves his lawsuit. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss on June 23, 2008; Middleton filed his notice of appeal on July 18; and the VBIA became effective on October 10. Middleton now claims that Congress enacted the VBIA to clarify that USERRA was never subject to any statute of limitations, and, consequently, the new provision should revive his claim. We disagree.
We turn first to the language of the disputed legislation. The VBIA struck the provision in USERRA that prohibited applying state statutes of limitation, formerly, as amended, at 38 U.S.C. § 4323(i), and replaced it with the following: If any person seeks to file a complaint or claim with the Secretary [of Labor], the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a Federal or State court under this chapter alleging a violation of this chapter, there shall be no limit on the period for filing the complaint or claim. Pub.L. No. 110-389, § 311(f)(1), 122 Stat. 4145, 4164 (2008) (codified at 38 U.S.C. § 4327(b)). As we detailed above, our first stop in interpreting legislation is the language that Congress employed, Engine Mfrs. Ass'n, 541 U.S. at 252, 124 S.Ct. 1756, and it is well established that a court should not apply a newly enacted statutory provision retroactively unless Congress has clearly mandated such an extension, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 946-47, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997); Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 619-20 (7th Cir.2007) (discussing the Supreme Court's decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), and the general presumption of antiretroactivity in cases where a statute's temporal reach is ambiguous); Bowlds, 411 F.3d at 811; Diaz v. Shallbetter, 984 F.2d 850, 852 (7th Cir.1993) (There is [a] venerable principle that changes in statutes do not apply to pending cases unless the legislature so commands, explicitly.). The VBIA says nothing about whether § 4327(b) applies retroactively. In fact, the only hint in the text suggests that it applies prospectively: If any person seeks to file a complaint or claim .... Sec. 311(f)(1), § 4327(b) (emphasis added). Congress was aware that for § 4327(b) to have retroactive effect, it needed to say so expressly, and the absence of any such express language in the text indicates that Congress chose not to do so. More importantly, however, is that even if we could interpret § 4327(b) to apply to some USERRA claims filed before October 10, 2008, this would not save Middleton's thirteen-year-old cause of action, which was already time-barred when § 4327(b) took effect. A plaintiff may overcome the general presumption against retroactivity, but doing so is especially tough when the amended law extends the time within which a plaintiff must file a lawsuit. Diaz, 984 F.2d at 852. We typically presume that a newly extended statute of limitations does not revive a previously barred claim. See Vill. of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1527 (7th Cir.1990) (In the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative purpose, subsequent extensions of a statutory limitation period will not revive a claim previously barred. (quotations omitted)); cf. Hughes Aircraft Co., 520 U.S. at 950, 117 S.Ct. 1871 (noting that the extension of a statute of limitations after the preexisting period of limitations has expired impermissibly revives a moribund cause of action). Laws enlarging the statute of limitations traditionally are applied prospectively; sometimes courts even hint that legislatures lack the power to revive claims that have become barred by lapse of time. Diaz, 984 F.2d at 852-53 (citing Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 720, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974)); see also Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., 525 F.3d 1057, 1058-59 (11th Cir.2008) (refusing to apply an extended limitations period for certain securities fraud cases, added by § 804(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to claims previously time-barred, and collecting cases, including our own in Foss v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 394 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir.2005)). Middleton asks us to apply § 4327(b) to revive a time-barred claim, but he has presented nothing to overcome our presumption against doing so. Congress said nothing about retroactivity, and under the general rule we have just stated, we cannot apply § 4327(b) to his thirteen-year-old USERRA claim. Because Middleton alleged conduct occurring more than four years before Congress enacted the VBIA, we need not decide whether § 4327(b) applies retroactively to a claim that accrued within the four years preceding the VBIA.
To avoid this result, Middleton argues that the VBIA merely clarified, rather than altered, existing law. Such legislation is not typically subject to a presumption against retroactivity and is applied to all cases pending on the date of enactment. See, e.g., ABKCO Music, Inc. v. LaVere, 217 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2000) (Normally, when an amendment is deemed clarifying rather than substantive, it is applied retroactively. (quotations omitted)); Piamba Cortes v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1283 (11th Cir. 1999) ([C]oncerns about retroactive application are not implicated when an amendment... is deemed to clarify relevant law rather than effect a substantive change in the law.); cf. Clay v. Johnson, 264 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir.2001) (noting that an agency rule clarifying an unsettled area of law may be applied to case at hand). A number of factors may indicate whether an amendment is clarifying rather than substantive: whether the enacting body declared that it was clarifying a prior enactment; whether a conflict or ambiguity existed prior to the amendment; and whether the amendment is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the prior enactment and its legislative history. Piamba Cortes, 177 F.3d at 1283-84; see also Liquilux Gas Corp. v. Martin Gas Sales, 979 F.2d 887, 890 (1st Cir.1992). We disagree with Middleton that the VBIA was clarifying legislation. As we explained in the first portion of our opinion, § 1658 applied to USERRA, and the text of the two statutes was not ambiguous, leaving nothing for Congress to clarify. Nor is the VBIA's amendment a reasonable interpretation of USERRA, which was silent on whether § 1658 should apply, or its legislative history, which contained nothing to contradict the clear language of § 1658. Rather than clarifying that no statute of limitations applied to USERRA, the 2008 Congress substantively changed the law so that § 1658 would not apply. We find the text of § 4327(b) to be unambiguous. It does not mention clarification or retroactivity, and we need not turn to the legislative history of the provision. Even if, however, we peeked at that history to determine whether a literal interpretation of the language would contravene Congress's intent, see Bowlds, 411 F.3d at 811, we find nothing to convince us that the VBIA applies to Middleton's claim. First, reliance on a legislature's observations regarding a prior legislature's intent is of marginal utility at best. See Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 117, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980) (noting the oft-repeated warning that the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one. (quotations omitted)); see also Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Blanchette, 628 F.2d 1011, 1014 (7th Cir.1980) ([T]he views of a later Congress cannot be accorded the weight of contemporary legislative history in a consideration of the intent of an earlier one. (quotations omitted)). Second, the only indication that perhaps Congress intended to clarify USERRA or that the VBIA should have retroactive effect came in a Senate report: Subsection 302(f) of the Committee bill would clarify that the original intent of Congress was that USERRA would not be subject to a federal or state statute of limitations period and specifically states that there is no time limit for a person to file a complaint.... The application of a federal statute of limitation period under USERRA is inconsistent with the intent of Congress.... S. Rep. 110-449, at 26 (2008), as reprinted in 2008 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1722, 1748-49. Although Congress used the word clarify, its act must also comport with other attributes of clarifying legislation to avoid being a substantive change in the law. We are hesitant in this case to afford that single word more weight than it deserves. The VBIA's legislative history says nothing regarding retroactivity. That the 2008 Congress believed USERRA to be unconstrained by a statute of limitations from birth is clear, but the 2008 Congress did not state that its amendment should apply to all claims. Furthermore, Congress did not express any intent to clarify USERRA in the statute itself. We proceed with caution when Congress declares its intent to clarify a law in the legislative history rather than the amendment's text. See Piamba Cortes, 177 F.3d at 1284 (As a general rule, `[a] mere statement in a conference report of [subsequent] legislation as to what the Committee believes an earlier statute meant is obviously less weighty' than a statement in the amendment itself. (alterations in original) (quoting Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 447 U.S. at 118 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 2051)). In Brown v. Thompson, the Fourth Circuit held that certain amendments were clarifying, noting that [m]ost significant to our determination here, Congress formally declared in the titles of the relevant subsections of [the amending act] that the amendments of [the original act] were `clarifying' and `technical,' and that Congress expressly provided in [the amending act] that these technical and clarifying amendments be made effective `as if included in the enactment' of the [original act]. 374 F.3d 253, 259 (4th Cir.2004). The VBIA contains no such language. Indeed, as the City points out, Congress has considered similar amendments that would have expressly provided for retroactive application of the VBIA. See, e.g., S. 3432, 110th Cong. § 7 (as introduced by Sens. Casey, Kennedy, and Obama, Aug. 1, 2008) (specifically entitled Clarification that USERRA Has No Statute of Limitations, and stating that the amendment shall apply to all actions or complaints filed under [USERRA] that are pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act). Congress knew how to make the VBIA retroactive, and it chose not to do so. Without guidance from Congress regarding the effect of the VBIA on pending claims, there is nothing to overcome both the natural meaning of § 4327(b)'s text and our general presumption that an amendment to a statute of limitations should not apply retroactively. The VBIA does not apply to Middleton's claim.