damages. The essence of defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion is that Count IV fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the 1991 Act does not apply to conduct occurring prior to its effective date of November 21, 1991. Defendant’s Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss (“Defendant’s Memo”) at 1-3. 2. Discussion Defendant urges the court to find that the 1991 Act does not apply retroactively “to matters that arose before the effective date of the Act,” Defendant’s Memo at 2, because “the great weight of authori 2d 345 (9th Cir.1993) (portion of opinion dealing with issue of retroactivity of 1991 Act vacated as moot due to settlement of claims for expert witness fees)). Accord Butts v. City of New York Dept, of Housing Preservation & Dev., 990 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). a. A Survey of the Circuits The First Circuit
holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively holding that the  1981 amendments contained in  101 of the civil rights act of 1991 do not apply retroactively holding that section 102 of the civil rights act of 1991 does not apply to preenactment conduct holding that section 101 of the act does not apply retroactively to eases not pending on appeal at the time the act became effective holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to  1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and  1981