Of these reasons, I join Parts I, II, and III of Justice MARSHALL’s viewpoint.

Of these reasons, I join Parts I, II, and III of Justice MARSHALL’s viewpoint.

Unlike Justice MARSHALL, nevertheless, I would personally perhaps maybe not make our holding retroactive. Instead, for reasons explained below, we accept Justice POWELL which our choice ought to be potential. We therefore join role III of Justice POWELL’s viewpoint.

In Chevron Oil Co. V. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 105-109, 92 S. Ct. 349, 354-356, 30 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1971), we established three requirements for determining when you should use a choice of statutory interpretation prospectively. First, your decision must begin a brand new concept of law, either by overruling clear past precedent or by determining a problem of first impression whose resolution had not been obviously foreshadowed. Id. 404 U.S., at 106, 92 S. Ct., at 355. Finally, We find this full situation managed by the exact same axioms of Title VII articulated by the Court in Manhart. If this first criterion had been the only consideration for prospectivity, i would find it hard to make today’s choice potential. (more…)