Marie Saenz-miller, Plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee, v. City of Alburquerque, a Municipality in the State of Newmexico; Mark Wilson, Sergeant; P. Dunworth,lieutenant, Defendants-appellees-cross-appellants, 54 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 1995)

Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor on her claims based on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C.2000e(k), as part of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.2000e--2000e-17, but ruled against her on her claims brought under 42 U.S.C.1983. The district court awarded plaintiff only equitable relief, and denied her claims for compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.1981a(b) & (c) (Act), holding the Act was not applicable retroactively to defendant's preenactment conduct. Plaintiff appeals the ruling on the Act's retroactivity. In their cross appeal, defendants challenge the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law underlying the judgment against them on plaintiff's PDA claims.

This appeal was abated pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the Act's retroactivity. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S. Ct. 1483 (1994), the Court held that the provisions of the Act providing for compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial shall not be applied retroactively to conduct occurring prior to the Act's effective date of November 21, 1991. Id. at 1505-06, 1508. Defendants' conduct in this case occurred prior to that date. Accordingly, the district court's order denying plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial will be affirmed.

Turning to defendants' cross appeal, the parties are familiar with the facts; we do not recite them here. The issues were tried to the court, evidence was taken, and the district court evaluated the evidence and the witnesses' credibility. We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error; its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Metz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 39 F.3d 1482, 1491 (10th Cir. 1994). Based on our review of the trial record, we find no reversible error in the district court's findings and conclusions.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED.