Court Opinion

ID: 9475187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:19:23.677692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:33.360488
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
The district court dismissed these hybrid § 301/DFR claims as barred by the six months limitation period established by the Supreme Court of the United States in DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The plaintiffs appealed to this court, and the majority of the three judge panel hearing the appeal reversed the district court, holding that DelCostello should not have been given retroactive effect in this case, and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381 (4th Cir.1985). One member of the panel dissented, expressing the views (1) that the Supreme Court in DelCostello had already resolved the issue of retroactivity against the plaintiffs and (2) that even if it is appropriate to conduct an independent analysis of retroactivity under Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the Chevron factors require that DelCostello be given retroactive rather than prospective application to these facts.
*1547A majority of the active judges of this court subsequently voted to give en banc consideration to the issues raised by this appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, it was held that the district court did not err when it applied DelCostello retroactively in this case and that the decision of the court should be affirmed. Since the rationale for the en banc court’s decision is adequately reflected in the dissenting opinion in Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 389-397 (4th Cir.1985), no useful purpose would be served by repeating it here.
AFFIRMED.