one of the bill’s sponsors, that the Act was to apply only prospectively, while another sponsor, Senator Kennedy, expressed disagreement with that view.). Thus, the Court turns to the text of the 1991 CRA which states: (a) In General. — Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon enactment. Section 402(a). One implication of this statement is that the amendments apply to all claims not yet decided at the time of enactment. However, the Supreme Court has recently observed that “there is no special reason to think that all the diverse provisions of the [CRA] must be treated uniformly” for purposes of retroactivity analysis. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, — U.S.-,-, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1505, 128 L.Ed.2d 229, 262 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The Landgraf court “understood the
holding that section 102 of the civil rights act of 1991 does not apply to preenactment conduct recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment holding section 102 of the cra creating the power to recover damages and providing for jury trial did not apply to case pending on appeal on the date of enactment holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury