Supreme Court subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 424, 107 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989), a case that addressed the issue of whether hiring hall discrimination constituted “discipline” within the meaning of sections 101(a)(5) and 609 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(5), 529. We, in turn, remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of Breininger, to the extent that Breininger affected our panel’s prior opinion. Guidry, 902 F.2d 335 (1990). Of course, for the reasons explained in our prior opinion, a remand to the district court was necessary, in any event, to reassess Guidry’s damages. See Guidry, 882 F.2d at 941-45 (<HOLDING>)'. Guidry now petitions this court for panel
holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that actual and punitive damages based on guidrys lmrda claims should be reassessed under a oneyear limitations period holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law  must yield to federal limitations