12 2 STA T .35 5 4PUBLIC LA W 11 0– 325 — S E PT. 25 , 200 8(8)Congres s fi n d s tha t the cu rrent Eq ua l E mp lo y ment O pportunity Commission AD A regulations defining the term ‘ ‘su b stantially limits ’ ’ as ‘‘significantly restricted’’ are incon - sistent w ith congressional intent , bye x pressing too high a standard . (b) PURPOSE S. —T he purposes of this Act are— ( 1 ) to carry out the ADA’s ob j ecti v es of providing ‘‘a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination’’ and ‘‘clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination’’ by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA
( 2 ) to reject the requirement enunciated by the S upreme Court in Sutton v. U nited Air L ines, I nc., 5 2 7 U.S. 4 71 (1 9 99) and its companion cases that whether an impairment substan- tially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures; ( 3 ) to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in School B oard of N assau County v. Arline, 48 0 U.S. 273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of the definition of handicap under the R ehabilitation Act of 1973; (4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota M otor Manufacturing, K entuc k y, Inc. v. W il- liams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ‘‘substantially’’ and ‘‘major’’ in the definition of disability under the ADA ‘‘need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,’’ and that to be substantially limited in performing a major life activity under the ADA ‘‘an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central impor- tance to most people’s daily lives’’; (5) to convey congressional intent that the standard created by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Manufac- turing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) for ‘‘substantially limits’’, and applied by lower courts in numerous decisions, has created an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA, to convey that it is the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations, and to convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis; and ( 6 ) to express Congress’ expectation that the Equal Employ- ment Opportunity Commission will revise that portion of its current regulations that defines the term ‘‘substantially limits’’ as ‘‘significantly restricted’’ to be consistent with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act. SEC.3 .C ODIF IED FI N DIN G S. Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended— (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows
‘‘(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society,
�
