Court Opinion

ID: 9473478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:30:52.7534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:33.152404
License: Public Domain

ERVIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that DelCostello should only be given prospective effect in this case. In my view, the majority has strayed afar from the Supreme Court’s clear command in Del-Costello itself to apply the six-month statute of limitations retroactively even where, as here, a § 301/DFR claim that would be timely under the applicable state statute is time barred under DelCostello. Although the Supreme Court’s retroactive application of DelCostello makes an independent analysis of retroactivity unnecessary, I am also convinced that the majority has misapplied the Chevron1 test in this case. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
The Supreme Court Has Already Resolved The Question of . Retroactivity
For reasons that are unclear to me, the majority has essentially ignored the Supreme Court’s retroactive application of the six-month limitations period for § 301/DFR claims in DelCostello and its companion case.2 DelCostello brought his § 301/DFR claim nearly eight months after his cause of action arose. 462 U.S. at 155, 103 S.Ct. at 2285. The district court held that Del-Costello’s claim was time barred under Maryland’s 30-day statute of limitations for actions to vacate arbitration awards. Id. at 156, 103 S.Ct. at 2286. The Supreme Court, however, applied the six-month limitations period retroactively and remanded DelCostello back to the district court to determine whether certain events not inquired into below had operated to toll the running of the statute of limitations.3 Id. at 172, 103 S.Ct. at 2294. The Supreme Court also applied the six-month statute of limitations retroactively in Flowers. Id. The plaintiffs in Flowers allowed ten months to elapse after their cause of action arose before they filed suit. Id. Although the Second Circuit found their suit to be timely under a three-year state statute of limitations, the Supreme Court retroactively applied the six-month limitations period and dismissed the suit as time barred. Id.
As the majority points out, Zemonick’s suit is timely under the applicable West *390Virginia statute of limitations but would be untimely under the DelCostello rule. On this basis, our previous decisions 4 in which we applied DelCostello retroactively may be distinguished insofar as the six-month limitations period exceeds the time allowed under the applicable state statutes in each case. Application of DelCostello retroactively in those cases, therefore, extended rather than curtailed the time within which a § 301/DFR claim could be filed. The Supreme Court’s holding in Flowers, however, cannot be distinguished for the same reason. The applicable state statute of limitations gave the Flowers’ plaintiffs thirty-six months to file their suit, thirty months more than the six permitted under DelCostello. Nevertheless, the Court retroactively applied DelCostello and dismissed their suit.
However unwise or unfair we may believe the retroactive application of DelCostello would be to this case, we cannot refuse to recognize “the Supreme Court’s directive on this issue.” Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733 F.2d 239, 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 512, 83 L.Ed.2d 402 (1984); accord Smith v. General Motors Corp., 747 F.2d 372, 375 (6th Cir.1984) (en banc)5; Campbell v. McLean Trucking Co., 592 F.Supp. 1560, 1562 (E.D.N.Y.1984); see also Goins v. Teamsters Local 639, 598 F.Supp. 1151, 1154 (D.D.C.1984) (dictum). Nevertheless, the majority asserts that “[njothing the Supreme Court did in DelCostello forecloses” a Chevron inquiry into retroactivity here because no “potential problem with retroactive application” under Chevron existed in DelCostello and its companion case. Surely had the Court felt that in some cases retroactive application of DelCostello might be inappropriate, it would have adopted a case-by-case approach to the retroactivity question by conducting a Chevron analysis. Yet the Court unmistakably refused to adopt the case-by-case retroactivity analysis necessary under Chevron by directly applying the six-month limitations period to the cases before it. Under the majority’s position, courts could completely dispense with a Chevron analysis when retroactive application of DelCostello would increase the limitations period. But those same courts would have to conduct the Chevron inquiry where, as here, retroactive application of DelCostello would decrease the applicable limitations period. A case-by-case approach, however, means exactly what it says: each case must be examined on the basis of its own peculiar facts to determine the appropriate result under the relevant test. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the Chevron case-by-case approach and we are bound to do the same. Consequently, a Chevron analysis in this case is unnecessary and DelCostello should be applied retroactively to bar Zemonick’s suit. Welyczko, 733 F.2d at 241; Smith, 747 F.2d at 375; Campbell, 592 F.Supp. at 1562; see also Goins, 598 F.Supp. at 1154 (dictum); DelCostello v. Teamsters, 588 F.Supp. 902, 907 (D.Md.1984).
II.
DelCostello Should Also Be Given Retroactive Effect Under The Chevron Test
Failing to follow the Supreme Court’s lead, the majority proceeds under Chevron to find that DelCostello should not be applied retroactively to § 301/DFR claims arising in West Virginia. DelCostello is, *391therefore, applied prospectively to Zemonick’s suit by the majority. Although the Supreme Court has directed that DelCostello be given retroactive effect, I feel that the same result is also mandated under a Chevron analysis.
A.
Retroactivity Is the General Rule
It is firmly rooted in our judicial system “that a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice.” Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974); accord Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 486 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 2879 n. 16, 69 L.Ed.2d 784 (1981); Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268, 281, 89 S.Ct. 518, 525, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969); Murray, 723 F.2d at 1147. Consistent with this principle, it has been repeatedly recognized “that the retroactive applicability of judicial decisions of federal courts is the rule, not the exception.” Simpson v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 681 F.2d 81, 84 (1st Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1127, 103 S.Ct. 762, 74 L.Ed.2d 977 (1983). There is, therefore, a strong presumption in favor of retroactivity that cannot be easily overcome. Id.; see also Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505, 507-08, 93 S.Ct. 876, 877-78, 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973). Guided by these general principles, I now turn to the question of retroactivity in this case under the Chevron test.
Because of the strong presumption in favor of retroactivity, all three hurdles of the Chevron test must be passed before courts will refuse to give a case retroactive effect. Rogers v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 720 F.2d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir.1983) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed.2d 227 (1984); Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 646 F.2d 792, 797 (2d Cir.1981); Harpp v. General Electric Co., 571 F.Supp. 426, 432 (N.D.N.Y.1983); accord Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 623 F.2d 786, 789-90 (2d Cir.1980), aff'd, 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982).6 As a consequence, the party opposing retroactivity bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision should be applied prospectively. Cash v. Califano, 621 F.2d 626, 629 (4th Cir.1980). Despite Zemonick’s substantial burden, the majority has concluded that all three Chevron factors favor giving DelCostello only prospective effect in this case. I disagree.
B.
Application of the Three Part Chevron Test
To satisfy the first part of the Chevron test, “a new principle of law [must be established] either by overruling clear past precedent ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106, 92 S.Ct. at 355. The majority argues that because of our earlier decisions7 in which we expressly held that (1) the same statute of limitations should apply to § 301 and DFR suits and that (2) the gov*392erning statute of limitations for such suits should be the state’s statute for actions on oral contracts, DelCostello overruled clear precedent in this circuit. A close reading of the opinions filed in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981),8 however, reveals that DelCostello did not erupt “from the Supreme Court firmament like a bolt out of the blue.” Graves, 736 F.2d at 821. Mitchell was handed down after our now apparently misguided decisions in Kennedy and Howard but prior to the time Zemonick filed his suit. Although these decisions were controlling in West Virginia until Del-Costello, “a local lawyer dealing with federal claims cannot simply ignore the significance of recent developments in the federal courts that would clearly warn him not to place undue reliance on a particular state case” or federal case applying state law. Landahl, 746 F.2d at 1315. Indeed, “the principle of adopting federal, rather than state, limitations periods in the area of federal labor law has been openly discussed in the courts, and even adopted by some courts prior to DelCostello.” Local Union 1397, 748 F.2d at 184 (citing Hall v. Printing and Graphic Arts Union, 696 F.2d 494 (7th Cir.1982); Badon v. General Motors Corp., 679 F.2d 93 (6th Cir.1982)) (emphasis added).
Since Mitchell portended an intended change in the law, “the first [Chevron ] factor weighs only slightly against retroactivity," Graves, 736 F.2d at 821. Clearly, the uncertain wake left behind by Mitchell reveals that “the six-month statute of limitations was not an abrupt and fundamental shift in a doctrine on which the plaintiff relied because the prior law was erratic and inconsistent,” Murray, 723 F.2d at 1148; accord Graves, 736 F.2d at 821; Lincoln, 723 F.2d at 630 (“DelCostello was not a clear break from prior law and notice of a shorter period being applicable was given in Mitchell.”); Perez v. Dana Corp., 718 F.2d 581, 587 (3d Cir.1983) (federal case law was “confused and divided” prior to DelCostello).
Despite these decisions, the majority declares that DelCostello “overruled direct precedent in this court upon which [Zemonick] ... justifiably relied.” But where the decision sought to be retroactively applied decided an issue of first impression, the inquiry under the first Chevron factor is only whether the resolution of that issue “was not clearly foreshadowed.” Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106, 92 S.Ct. at 355. Here, there can be little question that DelCostello decided an issue oí first impression that was clearly foreshadowed by Mitchell. Since the Mitchell court specifically declined to address whether section 10(b)’s *393six-month limitations period should be applied to § 301/DFR claims, 451 U.S. at 60 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. at 1562 n. 2; id. at 65, 101 S.Ct. at 1565 (Blackmun, J., concurring), when that question was finally presented in DelCostello — it represented an issue of first impression. Additionally, an examination of Mitchell reveals that the resolution of the question decided in DelCostello was clearly foreshadowed. As noted previously, the Supreme Court gave three separate indications in Mitchell that resolution of the section 10(b) question was just down the road. See supra note 8. No less telling, the Supreme Court, by overruling Hoosier Cardinal in Mitchell, revealed that its view regarding the appropriate statute of limitations for § 301/DFR suits was in no way immutable.
If the majority is correct in asserting that the opinions in Mitchell were not “a clear foreshadowing of the decision in Del-Costello,” I cannot conceive of a case where a significant and distinct departure from prior law would ever be considered “clearly foreshadowed” by prior decisions. Under the majority’s view, a finding that DelCostello was clearly foreshadowed would have required an express qualification by the Supreme Court in its Mitchell decision informing everyone that it planned to adopt section 10(b)’s six-month limitations period for § 301/DFR claims. But by so clearly revealing its plans for a future decision, the Supreme Court would be rendering an advisory opinion which the Constitution absolutely prohibits. See Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361, 31 S.Ct. 250, 255, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). Therefore, I cannot conclude that in this case satisfaction of the first Chevron factor required more explicit foreshadowing than that provided in Mitchell. Although Mitchell did not hold that § 301/DFR suits would be governed by section 10(b)’s six-month limitations period, it plainly alerted those concerned that upon a full adversarial record the Supreme Court was prepared to address the section 10(b) issue and quite possibly adopt that section’s limitations period for § 301/DFR suits. In short, “Del-Costello represented a clarification of the law, not a ‘clean break’ with past precedent.” Landahl, 746 F.2d at 1315.
Given the overriding weight of precedent holding that DelCostello was not a clear break from prior law9 and because Mitchell forewarned plaintiffs that the section 10(b) issue would be addressed in a later case, I am persuaded that Zemonick has not satisfied the first part of the Chevron test.
Under the second Chevron factor the majority cryptically concludes that “a finding of nonretroactivity in this case would not be disruptive of any great design of the laws of the United States.” There is, however, no support in the case law or in DelCostello itself for the majority’s finding that giving DelCostello prospective effect will neither retard its operation nor jettison the carefully balanced policy behind it. The federal courts have uniformly concluded that because nonretroactive application of DelCostello is manifestly inconsistent with the purpose of the six-month limitations period, the second Chevron factor does not favor prospective application of DelCostello. Local Union 1397, 748 F.2d at 184-85 (“the importance of uniformity in limitations periods” in labor law which “was a major consideration in the DelCostello opinion itself” favors retroactivity); Landahl, 746 F.2d at 1315 (“giving retroac*394tive effect to the DelCostello rule would further its purpose” even though a longer state statute of limitations would otherwise apply); Graves, 736 F.2d at 821-22 (“[Giving retroactive effect to DelCostello will further the purpose of the rule ... [even where] a longer state statute of limitations appliefs].”); Murray, 723 F.2d at 1148 (“[T]he purpose of the DelCostello rule require^] retroactive application.”)10; Lincoln, 723 F.2d at 630 (“retroactive application of DelCostello would further the policy of prompt settlement”); Rogers, 720 F.2d at 1250 (Prospective application of DelCostello “would retard rather than further the federal interests in prompt resolution of labor disputes, finality, and consistency embodied in DelCostello.’’)', Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 720 F.2d 857, 862 (5th Cir.1983) (second criterion of Chevron favors application of DelCostello retroactively); Perez, 718 F.2d at 588 (“second Chevron factor counsels in favor of retroactivity”). Although the Ninth Circuit is the lone federal court of appeals to give DelCostello only prospective effect, even that court has held that “[t]he second Chevron Oil factor does favor retroactivity” because application of a longer state statute of limitations “detracts from the principle of finality” which is a substantial purpose of DelCostello. Barina v. Gulf Trading & Transportation Co., 726 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir.1984).11 Hence, I can find no authority among the federal courts of appeal supporting the majority’s dubious finding that the second Chevron factor favors prospective application of DelCostello.
In addition, an independent examination of DelCostello reveals that a failure to apply the six-month limitations period to this case would be contrary to the federal interests embodied in DelCostello and would significantly hinder the operation of the DelCostello limitations period. The Supreme Court in DelCostello stressed that “ ‘the need for uniformity’ ” was an important reason for ending the previous practice of borrowing diverse state statutes of limitations. 462 U.S. at 171, 103 S.Ct. at 2294 (quoting Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 70, 101 S.Ct. at 1567 (Stewart, J., concurring)). Equally significant, “the Court reaffirmed that federal labor law favored ‘the relatively rapid resolution of labor disputes,’ and rejected the adoption of long limitations periods which would allow grievance and arbitration decisions to be called into question long after the fact.” Perez, 718 F.2d at 588 (quoting DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 168, 103 S.Ct. at 2292); accord Edwards, 720 F.2d at 861. Application of West Virginia’s five-year statute of limitations period would be clearly contrary to DelCostello’s dual purpose of uniformity and rapid finality.12 Refusing to overlook these pur*395poses behind the DelCostello six-month limitations period, I conclude that the second Chevron factor also favors retroactivity.
Analyzing the equities in this case under the third Chevron factor, the majority asserts that DelCostello should not be retroactively applied to dismiss this case. According to the majority, dismissal here for untimeliness “shouts of inequity” because Zemonick has “expended considerable time and effort in the development of [his] case on the merits.”
I am unable to agree -with these assertions by the majority. Retroactive application of DelCostello may be ungenerous, but it is not for this reason a result that we can escape under Chevron. First, Zemonick delayed filing his suit for thirteen months after he was discharged and his cause of action arose. Such a delay is more than twice the time the Supreme Court established for filing § 301/DFR claims in DelCostello. Nor has Zemonick offered any sympathetic or justifiable reason for his delay. Because this area of federal law was in considerable flux at the time his cause of action arose, caution and diligence demanded that Zemonick exhibit greater promptness in filing suit than he did. As a result, I cannot agree that retroactive application of DelCostello in this case “shouts of inequity.” Second, I attach little significance to the majority’s observation that Zemonick “expended considerable time and money” in preparing his case pri- or to its dismissal by the district court. Except for rare cases in which no pretrial discovery is conducted, nearly every plaintiff will have “expended considerable time and money” during the trial preparation stage. But where, as here, the plaintiff “has not been deprived of a judgment obtained before DelCostello came down,” there is little inequity in applying that decision retroactively.13 Graves, 736 F.2d at 822; accord Estades, 593 F.Supp. at 782.
Admittedly, the majority correctly notes that our decisions in Murray and Sine may be distinguished from this case by considering the equities involved under the third Chevron factor. In Murray, the plaintiff
*396had notice that Maryland’s exceedingly short thirty-day statute of limitations for suits to vacate an arbitration award applied. 723 F.2d at 1147. Thus, retroactive application of DelCostello in Murray extended the time within which the plaintiff could file even though the delay in filing of over two years still required dismissal. Id. at 1148. Similarly, the retroactive application of DelCostello in Sine had the effect of reinstating a claim that would otherwise have been time barred under a shorter state statute of limitations. 730 F.2d at 966. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court and many of our sister circuits have retroactively imposed DelCostello to time bar a claim that would have been timely under the previously governing state statute of limitations. DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 172, 103 S.Ct. at 2294 (suit filed ten months after cause arose dismissed under DelCostello rule even though state statute of limitations was three years); Flores v. Levy Co., 757 F.2d 806, 118 L.R.R.M. 3129, 3130-31 (7th Cir.1985) (DelCostello applied retroactively to dismiss suit brought three years after cause of action arose notwithstanding Illinois’ ten year statute of limitations period for written contracts); Landahl, 746 F.2d at 1316 (7th Cir.) (DelCostello applied retroactively to dismiss case filed fifteen months after cause of action arose despite Wisconsin’s applicable six-year limitations period); Linder v. Berge, 567 F.Supp. 913, 915-16 (D.R.I.1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 686, 690 n. 3 (1st Cir.1984) (DelCostello applied retroactively despite Rhode Island’s previously applicable three-year and six-year statutes of limitations for § 301/DFR suits); Graves, 736 F.2d at 820-21 (1st Cir.) (DelCostello applied retroactively to dismiss case filed eight months after cause arose notwithstanding New Hampshire’s one-year limitations period); Rogers, 720 F.2d at 1250 (11th Cir.) (rejecting plaintiff’s request that “state statutes of limitations with periods much longer than the six-months adopted in DelCostello be applied”); Edwards, 720 F.2d at 859 (5th Cir.) {Del-Costello applied retroactively to dismiss claims despite previous applicability of Texas’ two- and four-year statutes of limitations); Estades, 593 F.Supp. at 782 (suit filed two years and two months after cause of action arose dismissed by retroactive application of DelCostello even though suit would have been timely under Puerto Rico’s applicable fifteen-year limitations period). Contra Barina, 726 F.2d at 562 (9th Cir.) (DelCostello applied prospectively to save claim filed less than a year after the cause arose because it was timely under a four-year state statute of limitations).
Further, the Sixth, Fifth, and Second Circuits have held that DelCostello must be applied retroactively to all cases regardless of the peculiar equities involved in each. Smith, 747 F.2d at 375 (6th Cir;); Gray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Local 540, 736 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1984); Welyczko, 733 F.2d at 241 (2d Cir.). Under the illuminating light of these decisions, it is clear that there is no inherent inequity in retroactively imposing DelCostello’s statute of limitations even where, like here, it reduces the time available under the previously governing period. Fairness does not require that DelCostello be given only asymmetrical retroactive effect. With respect to statutes of limitations, equity has two sides. If it was fair to the defendant in Murray to reinstate a claim that was time barred under the state statute by applying DelCostello retroactively, it is equally fair to the plaintiff in this case to dismiss his suit by giving DelCostello retroactive effect. Under the majority’s argument, the defendant in Murray — at least until Del-Costello —reasonably expected to be sued, if at all, within thirty-days after a § 301/DFR cause of action arose against it. Applying DelCostello retroactively in this case would, therefore, be no more unfair to Zemonick than it was to the defendant in Murray. The third Chevron factor requires courts to examine what the equitable consequences of retroactive application are to both parties to an action, not just the plaintiff. 404 U.S. at 107, 92 S.Ct. at 355. Consequently, the equities in this case do not demand disregard of the clear weight of persuasive precedent holding that the third Chevron factor counsels in *397favor of applying DelCostello retroactively.
From the foregoing, it appears that none of the Chevron factors are susceptible of a determination that favors prospectivity in this case. Chevron plainly commands retroactive application of DelCostello.14
III.
The Extraordinary Weight of Authority Favors Retroactivity
My final reason for arguing that DelCostello should be applied retroactively to this case is the tremendous weight of precedent which I do not believe the majority’s reasoning has overcome. Except for the Ninth Circuit, every federal court of appeals has held that DelCostello should be applied retroactively.15 Smith, 747 F.2d at 375 (6th Cir.) (en banc); Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 362 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 594, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Graves, 736 F.2d at 822 (1st Cir.); Gray, 736 F.2d at 1055 (5th Cir.); Welyczko, 733 F.2d at 241 (2d Cir.); Murray, 723 F.2d at 1148 (4th Cir.); Lincoln, 723 F.2d at 630 (8th Cir.); Rogers, 720 F.2d at 1250 (11th Cir.); Perez, 718 F.2d at 588 (3d Cir.); Storck v. Teamsters, 712 F.2d 1194, 1196 (7th Cir.1983). Contra Barina, 726 F.2d at 564 (9th Cir.). Given the sound reasoning in these decisions, I find no reason, unlike the majority, to join the lonely position taken by the Ninth Circuit and thereby depart from the almost uniform view that DelCostello should be applied retroactively.
For all these reasons, I cannot lend my approbation to the majority’s decision which is — in my view — neither sound nor permitted by the case law. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s prospective application of DelCostello in this case and would affirm the judgment of the district court.

. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971).

. DelCostello was consolidated with United Steelworkers v. Flowers, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).

. On remand, the district court refused to toll the running of the six-month limitations period for § 301/DFR claims and dismissed DelCostello 's suit. DelCostello v. Teamsters, 588 F.Supp. 902, 909-11 (D.Md.1984).

. Murray v. Branch Motor Express Co., 723 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir.1983) cert. denied, -U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984); Sine v. Local 992, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 730 F.2d 964 (4th Cir.1984).

. In Smith, the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc reasoned:
If the Supreme Court had not intended for DelCostello to apply retroactively, the Court easily could have reserved this issue or could have applied the statute of limitations pro-
spectively, as it did in Chevron. By applying the statute of limitations to extinguish the claim in the case before the Court, we feel the Supreme Court demonstated its intent to apply DelCostello retroactively.
747 F.2d at 375. From this reasoning, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the six-month statute of limitations for § 301/DFR claims "is applicable to all cases pending at the time DelCostello was decided.” Id. (emphasis added).

. Although not expressly holding that prospectivity requires that all three Chevron factors be satisfied, numerous courts have implicitly indicated that the satisfaction of each Chevron factor is a prerequisite to prospective application in any case. See, e.g., Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 88, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2880, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982) (All three Chevron factors "mitigate against the retroactive application of our holding today.”); United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 550 n. 12, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 2587 n. 12, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982) (factors two and three considered only if the first is satisfied); Jackson v. City of Bloomfield, 731 F.2d 652, 654-55 (10th Cir.1984) (first Chevron factor is threshold test for nonretroactivity); Railroad Yardmasters v. Harris, 721 F.2d 1332, 1344 n. 32 (D.C.Cir.1983) (all three Chevron factors supported prospectively); In re Locarno 23 B.R. 622, 632 (Bankr.D.Md.1982) (prospectivity application required because all three Chevron factors were satisfied). The requirement that prospective effect will be given a case only if all three Chevron factors are satisfied is also consistent with the strong presumption in favor of retroactivity.

. Kennedy v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 81 L.R.R.M. 2349 (4th Cir.1972); Howard v. Aluminum Workers International Union, 589 F.2d 771 (4th Cir.1978).

. There are at least three clear indications in Mitchell that a change in the applicable statute of limitations for § 301/DFR suits was not far away. Graves v. Smith Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819, 821 (1st Cir.1984); see also Local Union 1397 v. United Steelworkers, 748 F.2d 180, 184 (3d Cir.1984) (DelCostello neither established a new principle of law nor decided an issue which could not have been foreshadowed); Landahl v. PPG Indus., 746 F.2d 1312, 1315 (7th Cir.1984) ("the result in DelCostello was foreshadowed by Mitchell”)', Lincoln v. District 9, Inti Ass’n of Machinists, 723 F.2d 627, 630 (8th Cir.1983) ("At the very least, the Mitchell case should have put [plaintiff] on notice that a shorter time limitation might be imposed.”); Estades v. Harry M. Stevens, Inc., 593 F.Supp. 778, 782 (D.P.R.1984) (“Mitchell adumbrated the imposition of a six months limitation period in [§ 301/DFR] suits.”). The first indication occurred in footnote two of the Court's opinion discussing the amicus argument that the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) should be applied. The Court explained: "Our grant of certiorari was to consider which state limitations period should be borrowed, not whether such borrowing was appropriate." Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 60 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. at 1563 n. 2 (emphasis in original). The second portent of DelCostello was Justice Black-mun's remark that "[a]lthough I find much that is persuasive in Justice Stewart’s analysis, resolution of the § 10(b) question properly should await the development of a full adversarial record." Id. at 65, 101 S.Ct. at 1565 (Blackmun, J., concurring). Finally, the most obvious foreshadowing of DelCostello was Justice Stewart’s well reasoned and strongly worded concurring opinion imploring the Court to adopt the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Id. at 65-71, 101 S.Ct. at 1565-1568 (Stewart, J., concurring). I agree with the Seventh Circuit that "these three statements in Mitchell clearly suggested that the limitations period of section 10(b) of the Act would be adopted." Landahl, 746 F.2d at 1315.

. In Murray, we held that DelCostello was not a clear and abrupt change in the applicable statute of limitations for § 301/DFR claims. Admittedly, the applicable state statute of limitations in Murray was Maryland’s 30-day statute for actions to vacate an arbitration award, whereas in this case the appropriate state statute of limitations is West Virginia’s five-year statute for actions upon oral contracts. Under the first Chevron factor, however, we must look to Supreme Court precedent first and foremost and not merely at our own to determine whether (1) DelCostello represents a clear break from prior law and whether (2) the issue decided in DelCostello was one of "first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106, 92 S.Ct. at 355. Because the Supreme Court precedent did indeed foreshadow DelCostello, I believe our holding in Murray regarding the first Chevron factor should also be applied to this case.

. I also believe that we are bound by our previous holding in Murray that the second Chevron factor favors retroactivity. This factor must be analyzed independently from the first Chevron factor and from the equities of each case involved under the third Chevron factor. Furthermore, whether the first and third Chevron factors favor retroactive application of Del-Costello may vary from case to case. However, the second Chevron factor cannot vary — it either favors retroactive application of DelCostello in every case or not at all.

. More recently, the Ninth Circuit has declared that in deciding DelCostello, "the Supreme Court wished a uniform statute of limitations to apply” in order to prevent "[t]he waste of time and resources” that had previously occurred when plaintiffs pursued their § 301/DFR claims "under an almost infinite variety of local limitations statutes.” Glover v. United Grocers, Inc., 746 F.2d 1380, 1382 (9th Cir.1984), petition for cert. filed, 53 U.S.L.W. 3600 (U.S. Feb. 5, 1985) (No. 84-1257). Consequently, the court went on to conclude that “[n]ot to apply DelCostello [retroactively in the case before it] would be to thwart its clear purpose in making uniform the statute of limitations applied to employers and unions when the claim is at once for breach of duty of fair representation and for breach of contract.” Id. at 1383.

. Despite the collective wisdom of every federal circuit court of appeals, the majority concludes that the second Chevron factor favors prospective application of DelCostello. They reach this conclusion by finding that (1) "[t]he court’s specific endeavor in DelCostello ... was to enlarge the short period of limitations authorized by Mitchell; ” (2) that prospective application in this case “would not ... significantly retardf]” the policies underlying DelCostello; and (3) that ”[t]here are only a few states which have no statutes limiting commencement of actions to vacate arbitration awards.” These assertions are only partially true.
*395First, the Supreme Court in DelCostello’s companion case purposely shortened the statute of limitations that had been applied to actions against unions by observing that
[the] application of a longer malpractice statute as against unions would preclude the relatively rapid final resolution of labor disputes favored by federal law____ In No. 81-2408, for example, the, holding of the Court of Appeals would permit a suit as long as three years after termination of the grievance proceeding; many states provide for periods even longer.
DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 168, 103 S.Ct. at 2292 (footnote omitted). Second, prospective application of DelCostello here would give plaintiffs in West Virginia who filed suit before the decision in DelCostello was handed down a limitations period that is ten times longer than the six-month period now in effect. Equally noteworthy, the majority’s holding today carves an undesirable exception to the DelCostello rule for cases in this circuit arising in West Virginia. These observations clearly demonstrate that prospective application of DelCostello is totally inconsistent with the twin aims of DelCostello: uniformity and rapid finality in labor dispute resolution. Finally, while only a few states do not have statutes limiting the time within which an action to vacate an arbitration award may be brought, every state has a limitations period for malpractice actions (that applied to suits against unions before DelCostello ended the practice of borrowing the most appropriate state statute of limitations for § 301/DFR claims) far in excess of DelCostello’s six-month period. As the Supreme Court observed in DelCostello:
One state’s limitations period for legal malpractice is 10 years. Other states allow six years (10 states); five years (4 states); four years (5 states); three years (10 states and the District of Columbia); two years (10 states); and one year (4 states).
Id. at n. 18.

. The Eleventh Circuit has even concluded that the equities mandate retroactivity: “Prospective application of DelCostello would cause inequitable results. Numerous state statutes of limitations would apply to similar causes of action. Prospective application would extend the inconsistent results that DelCostello sought to remedy.” Rogers, 720 F.2d at 1250. Under the majority’s view, a plaintiff in Maryland bringing a § 301/DFR claim seven months after his cause of action arose but before DelCostello came down would find his claim time barred. A similarly situated plaintiff in West Virginia, however, could bring the same claim up to five years after his cause of action arose without fear of having his claim time barred. Such a result is hardly equitable.

. Even if we assume that the third Chevron factor favors nonretroactivity in this case, retroactive application of DelCostello would still be necessary because prospective effect cannot be given a decision unless all three Chevron factors are satisfied. See Holzsager, 646 F.2d at 797; Rogers, 720 F.2d at 1249.

. Nearly all of the reported district court opinions have also applied DelCostello retroactively. Moseley v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 594 F.Supp. 1039, 1050 (E.D.La.1984); Estades, 593 F.Supp. at 782; Campbell, 592 F.Supp. at 1562; Fisher v. CPC Int'l Inc., 591 F.Supp. 228, 231 (W.D.Mo.1984); Bey v. Williams, 590 F.Supp. 1150, 1153 (W.D.Pa.1984); Heffner v. General Comm, of Adjustment, 587 F.Supp. 387, 389 (D.Ind.1984); Oliver v. Local No. 1261 United Transp. Union, 587 F.Supp. 3, 6 n. 1 (N.D.Ga.1984); Thibault v. Stop & Shop Companies, 585 F.Supp. 1359, 1361-62 (D.Conn.1984); Vecchione v. United Tel. Co., 584 F.Supp. 1161, 1166 (N.D.Ohio 1984); Thomas v. Kroger Co., 583 F.Supp. 1031, 1035 (S.D.W.Va.1984); Johnson v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 581 F.Supp. 338, 344 n. 1 (M.D.N.C.1984). Contra Sole v. Thorofare Markets, Inc., 571 F.Supp. 1233, 1236 (N.D.W.Va.1983).