is against such retroactive application,” id. at 2-3 (citing Baynes v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 976 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir.1992); Gersman v. Group Health Ass’n, Inc., 975 F.2d 886 (D.C.Cir.1992); Holt v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 974 F.2d 771 (6th Cir.1992) (citing Vogel v. City of Cincinnati, 959 F.2d 594 (6th Cir.1992)); Johnson v. Uncle Ben’s, Inc., 965 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir.1992); Mozee v. American Commercial Marine Service Co., 963 F.2d 929 (7th Cir.1992); Fray v. Omaha World Herald Co., 960 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir.1992); EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Dec. 27, 1991) (finding that the damages provisions of the 1991 Act do not apply retroactively to conduct occurring prior to the effective date of the 1991 Act); but see Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied, vacated in part, remanded, 984
holding that congress intended the courts to apply the civil rights act of 1991 to cases pending at the time of its enactment and to preact conduct still open to challenge after that time holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment holding that section 102 of the civil rights act of 1991 does not apply to preenactment conduct holding that conduct prior to passage of the civil rights act of 1991 is admissible to provide context and background