II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3823 

To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to provide a means to combat discrimination on the basis of age or disability, by conditioning a State’s 

receipt or use of Federal financial assistance on the State’s waiver 

of immunity from suit for violations under such Acts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to 

provide a means to combat discrimination on the basis 

of age or disability, by conditioning a State’s receipt 

or use of Federal financial assistance on the State’s 

waiver of immunity from suit for violations under such 

Acts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Civil Rights Restora5 tion Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3823 IS

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) For over 30 years, Congress has outlawed 

4 employment discrimination by State employers. In 

5 1974, in the face of pervasive age discrimination by 

6 State and other employers, Congress amended the 

7 Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 

8 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (referred to in this Act as the 

9 ‘‘ADEA’’) to outlaw age discrimination by such em10 ployers. In 1990, Congress passed the Americans 

11 with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 

12 seq.) (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘ADA’’) to pro13 vide a ‘‘clear and comprehensive national mandate’’, 

14 as described in section 2(b)(1) of that Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 12101(b)(1)), to eliminate discrimination 

16 against individuals with disabilities, even when that 

17 discrimination came at the hands of States, includ18 ing State employers. 

19 (2)(A) Many years have passed since the enact20 ment of those laws, but discrimination on the basis 

21 of age or disability remains a serious problem in the 

22 United States. 

23 (B) Discrimination has invidious effects on its 

24 victims, the workforce, the economy as a whole, and 

25 government revenues. Discrimination on the basis of 

26 age or disability— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 3823 IS

1 (i) increases the risk of unemployment 

2 among older workers or individuals with disabil3 ities, who may, as a result of the discrimina4 tion, be forced to depend on government pro5 grams; 

6 (ii) adversely affects the morale and pro7 ductivity of the workforce; 

8 (iii) perpetuates unwarranted stereotypes 

9 about the abilities of older workers or individ10 uals with disabilities, thus reducing the effec11 tiveness of government programs promoting 

12 nondiscrimination and integration; and 

13 (iv) prevents the best use of both public 

14 and private resources. 

15 (3) Since the passage of the ADA and the 

16 ADEA, private civil suits by the victims of discrimi17 nation have been an essential tool in combating ille18 gal discrimination. As one witness explained during 

19 hearings on the legislation that became the ADA, 

20 ‘‘civil rights laws depend heavily on private enforce21 ment’’. ‘‘[D]amages are essential to provide private 

22 citizens a meaningful opportunity to vindicate their 

23 rights. Attempts to weaken the remedies available 

24 under the ADA are attacks on the ADA itself, and 

25 their success would make the ADA an empty promVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:17 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3823.IS S3823

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
4 

•S 3823 IS

1 ise of equality.’’. Field Hearing on Americans with 

2 Disabilities Act, Before the Subcommittee on Select 

3 Education of the House Committee on Education 

4 and Labor, 101st Cong. 68 (1989) (statement of 

5 Mr. Howard Wolf). 

6 (4) In recent years, however, the Supreme 

7 Court has created a serious loophole in the ADA and 

8 the ADEA, weakening their ‘‘promise of equality’’. 

9 In Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 

10 (2000), for instance, the Supreme Court held that 

11 Congress lacked the power to subject States to suit 

12 for money damages under the ADEA. In Board of 

13 Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 

14 531 U.S. 356 (2001), the Court again held that 

15 Congress lacked the power to subject States to suit 

16 for money damages, this time under title I of the 

17 ADA (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.). 

18 (5) As a result of those decisions, State employ19 ees who are victimized by discrimination on the basis 

20 of age or disability cannot sue in Federal court for 

21 money damages to vindicate their Federal rights. 

22 Those decisions have, in turn, had 2 unfortunate 

23 consequences. 

24 (6) First, they have undermined the enforce25 ment of the ADA and the ADEA. Lawsuits for 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
5 

•S 3823 IS

1 money damages are the primary means for private 

2 individuals to obtain redress for discrimination. In 

3 addition, lawsuits for money damages promote deter4 rence and provide an important way for the Federal 

5 Government to enforce antidiscrimination laws. By 

6 eliminating the ability for State employees to sue 

7 their employers for such damages, the Supreme 

8 Court’s Kimel and Garrett decisions have made en9 forcement of these civil rights laws more difficult. 

10 (7) Second, they have created a legal regime 

11 that gives State employees fewer rights than other 

12 employees covered by the ADA and the ADEA. At 

13 present, employees of local governments and employ14 ees in the private sector are entitled to sue in Fed15 eral court for money damages for violations of the 

16 ADA or the ADEA. For the more than 2,500,000 

17 individuals who work for the States, however, such 

18 relief is no longer available. 

19 (8) Although most States have laws in effect 

20 that bar discrimination on the basis of age or dis21 ability, those laws are insufficient to provide redress 

22 for those individuals who are subjected to discrimi23 nation by State employers or agencies. 

24 (9) A few States apply the doctrine of sovereign 

25 immunity to completely bar State employees from 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
6 

•S 3823 IS

1 suing in State court for age discrimination. In sev2 eral States, it is still unclear whether State law 

3 claims can proceed in State court for age discrimina4 tion or whether those claims are barred by sovereign 

5 immunity. Finally, there are many States that se6 verely limit or restrict the kinds of remedies or mon7 etary relief available to State employees who bring 

8 suits for discrimination on the basis of age. 

9 (10) The same problems exist with State laws 

10 regarding disability discrimination. In fact, one re11 cent analysis has shown that there are significant 

12 gaps in the coverage and remedies available under 

13 State laws outlawing discrimination. 

14 (11) Thus, while State laws are important in 

15 trying to stem discrimination on the basis of age or 

16 disability, they are currently inadequate to close the 

17 loophole created by the Kimel and Garrett decisions. 

18 (12) In the years since the Kimel and Garrett 

19 decisions, many States have also challenged the con20 stitutionality of title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. 

21 12131 et seq.). These challenges have forced individ22 uals with disabilities into extensive litigation about 

23 sovereign immunity when they seek redress for dis24 ability discrimination in such fundamental areas as 

25 access to the courts, access to community-based 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
7 

•S 3823 IS

1 services, access to State-sponsored health insurance, 

2 access to public transportation, access to handi3 capped parking, access to mental health services, 

4 and access to public education. The Supreme Court 

5 has issued several decisions that invite even more 

6 litigation. In Tennessee v. Lane, for instance, the 

7 Court held that, under the particular facts of that 

8 case, a plaintiff could sue the State for money dam9 ages under title II of the ADA, even though the 

10 Court, in the Garrett case, had barred a claim for 

11 such damages under title I of that Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 12111 et seq.) Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 

13 (2004). 

14 (13) After the Lane decision, some claims 

15 against States are permitted to proceed under the 

16 ADA, while others are not. This has made it ex17 tremely difficult for the victims of discrimination, 

18 States, and Congress to determine precisely when 

19 States are subject to suit under the ADA and when 

20 they are not. The confusion has spawned a signifi21 cant amount of litigation in the lower Federal 

22 courts. This jurisprudence has even caused the 

23 Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

24 Senate, Senator Arlen Specter, to condemn the 

25 Court’s recent decisions as ‘‘inexplicable’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
8 

•S 3823 IS

1 (14) The Constitution provides Congress with 

2 the power to enact legislation— 

3 (A) to clarify that, despite the Supreme 

4 Court’s decisions in the Kimel and Garrett 

5 cases, the States are subject to suit just like 

6 other entities when the States violate the ADA 

7 and the ADEA; and 

8 (B) to end the confusion created by the 

9 Court’s decision in the Lane case. 

10 (15) Under section 8 of article I of the Con11 stitution, ‘‘The Congress shall have power to lay and 

12 collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the 

13 debts and provide for the common defense and gen14 eral welfare of the United States’’. 

15 (16) Congress’ power under this language, 

16 known as the Spending Clause, is well-established. 

17 Under this Clause, Congress has the power to re18 quire the States to abide by certain conditions in ex19 change for receiving Federal financial assistance. 

20 This authority has been recognized by the Supreme 

21 Court repeatedly through the years and reaffirmed 

22 recently. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) 

23 (declaring that Congress may exert authority 

24 through its spending power); South Dakota v. Dole, 

25 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (upholding condition requiring 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
9 

•S 3823 IS

1 the establishment of a drinking age of 21 years in 

2 exchange for the receipt of Federal highway dollars). 

3 In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically held that 

4 Congress may require a State, as a condition of re5 ceiving Federal financial assistance, to waive its im6 munity from suit for violations of Federal law. Col7 lege Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary 

8 Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999). 

9 (17) Congress has previously used its spending 

10 power to require States to waive their immunity 

11 from suit in exchange for receiving Federal financial 

12 assistance. For instance, the provisions of section 

13 1003 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 

14 (42 U.S.C. 2000d–7) provide that a State shall not 

15 be immune from suit under the 11th amendment for 

16 violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

17 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), title IX of the Education 

18 Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the 

19 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et 

20 seq.), and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

21 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.). At least one court, how22 ever, has suggested that those provisions do not 

23 apply to the ADA or the ADEA. Brown v. Wash24 ington Metro Area Transit Authority, No. DKC 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
10 

•S 3823 IS

1 2005–0052, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16881 (D. Md. 

2 2005). 

3 (18) By requiring States to waive their immu4 nity from suit under the ADA and the ADEA in ex5 change for receiving Federal assistance, the Federal 

6 government can ensure that Federal dollars are not 

7 ‘‘frittered away’’ on unlawful discrimination. Such a 

8 conditional waiver will help Congress ‘‘protect the in9 tegrity of the vast sums of money distributed 

10 through Federal programs’’. Sabri v. United States, 

11 541 U.S. 600 (2004). ‘‘Simple justice requires that 

12 public funds, to which all taxpayers . . . contribute, 

13 not be spent in any fashion which encourages, en14 trenches, subsidizes, or results in . . . discrimina15 tion’’. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). This 

16 simple principle applies whether the discrimination is 

17 based on race, as in the Lau case, or age, or dis18 ability, as in Barbour v. Washington Metro Area 

19 Transit Authority, 374 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

20 (19) Such a conditional waiver does not coerce 

21 a State in any way. The Supreme Court has recog22 nized that a State’s voluntary waiver of its 11th 

23 amendment right is constitutional. College Savings 

24 Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education 

25 Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (citing Clark 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
11 

•S 3823 IS

1 v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436 (1883)). The Court has 

2 explicitly recognized that a State’s acceptance of 

3 Federal funds constitutes a knowing agreement to a 

4 congressionally-imposed condition on the funds. 

5 Thus, while Congress may not compel States to 

6 waive their immunity granted under the 11th 

7 amendment, a voluntary State waiver condition is 

8 wholly permissible. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 

9 (1999). 

10 (20) The Kimel and Garrett decisions frustrate 

11 the ability of the ADA and the ADEA to protect in12 dividual rights and remedy violations of Federal law. 

13 In the wake of those decisions, and in recognition 

14 that State laws may be insufficient to protect 

15 against discrimination on the basis of age or dis16 ability, it is essential to require that States waive 

17 their immunity from suit under the ADA and the 

18 ADEA for those programs or activities receiving 

19 Federal financial assistance. 

20 SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

21 The purposes of this Act are— 

22 (1) to provide to any State employee or person 

23 aggrieved by any program or activity that receives 

24 Federal financial assistance the right to sue the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
12 

•S 3823 IS

1 State for money damages for any violation of the 

2 ADA or the ADEA; and 

3 (2) to provide that a State’s receipt or use of 

4 Federal financial assistance for any program or ac5 tivity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sov6 ereign immunity, under the 11th amendment to the 

7 Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by any 

8 employee or person aggrieved by that program or ac9 tivity for any violation of the ADA or the ADEA. 

10 SEC. 4. ABROGATION OF STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 

11 (a) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF

12 1967.—Section 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employ13 ment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626) is amended by adding 

14 at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(g) WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.— 

16 ‘‘(1) WAIVER.—A State’s receipt or use of Fed17 eral financial assistance for any program or activity 

18 of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign im19 munity, under the 11th amendment to the Constitu20 tion or otherwise, to a suit brought by any employee 

21 or person aggrieved by that program or activity for 

22 equitable, legal, or other relief authorized by or 

23 through this Act. 

24 ‘‘(2) ABROGATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLA25 TION.—In addition to the abrogation of sovereign 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
13 

•S 3823 IS

1 immunity already accomplished by this Act, a 

2 State’s sovereign immunity, under the 11th amend3 ment to the Constitution or otherwise, is abrogated 

4 for any suit brought by any employee or person for 

5 equitable, legal, or other relief authorized by or 

6 through this Act, for conduct that violates the 14th 

7 amendment (including the constitutional rights in8 corporated in the 14th amendment) and that also 

9 violates this Act. 

10 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

11 ‘‘(A) PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘pro13 gram or activity’ has the meaning given 

14 the term in section 309 of the Age Dis15 crimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6107). 

16 ‘‘(ii) OPERATIONS INCLUDED.—The 

17 term includes any operation carried out, 

18 funded, or arranged by an entity described 

19 in clause (i) or (ii) of section 309(4)(A) of 

20 such Act (42 U.S.C. 6107(4)(A)) that re21 ceives Federal financial assistance, even if 

22 the entity does not use the Federal finan23 cial assistance for the operation. 

24 ‘‘(B) RECIPIENT.—A State shall be consid25 ered to receive Federal financial assistance for 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
14 

•S 3823 IS

1 a program or activity if the program or activ2 ity— 

3 ‘‘(i) receives the assistance from an 

4 intermediary; and 

5 ‘‘(ii) is the intended recipient under 

6 the statutory provision through which the 

7 intermediary receives the assistance. 

8 ‘‘(C) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

9 paragraph shall be construed to suggest that, 

10 for purposes of this subsection or title III of 

11 such Act— 

12 ‘‘(i) the term ‘program or activity’ 

13 would not include the operation described 

14 in subparagraph (A)(ii), in the absence of 

15 this paragraph; or 

16 ‘‘(ii) a State described in subpara17 graph (B) would not be considered to re18 ceive Federal financial assistance for a 

19 program or activity, in the absence of this 

20 paragraph.’’. 

21 (b) TITLE I OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES

22 ACT OF 1990.—Section 107 of the Americans with Dis23 abilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12117) is amended by 

24 adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(c) WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
15 

•S 3823 IS

1 ‘‘(1) WAIVER.—A State’s receipt or use of Fed2 eral financial assistance for any program or activity 

3 of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign im4 munity, under the 11th amendment to the Constitu5 tion or otherwise, to a suit brought by any employee 

6 or person alleging a violation of this title (including 

7 regulations promulgated under section 106) or sec8 tion 503, or otherwise aggrieved, by that program or 

9 activity for equitable, legal, or other relief authorized 

10 by or through this Act or section 1977A of the Re11 vised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a). 

12 ‘‘(2) ABROGATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLA13 TION.—In addition to the abrogation of sovereign 

14 immunity already accomplished by section 502, a 

15 State’s sovereign immunity, under the 11th amend16 ment to the Constitution or otherwise, is abrogated 

17 for any suit brought by any employee or person for 

18 equitable, legal, or other relief authorized by or 

19 through this Act or section 1977A of the Revised 

20 Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), for conduct that vio21 lates the 14th amendment (including the constitu22 tional rights incorporated in the 14th amendment) 

23 and that also violates this title (including regulations 

24 promulgated under section 106) or section 503. 

25 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
16 

•S 3823 IS

1 ‘‘(A) PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY.— 

2 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘pro3 gram or activity’ has the meaning given 

4 the term in section 504(b) of the Rehabili5 tation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794(b)). 

6 ‘‘(ii) OPERATIONS INCLUDED.—The 

7 term includes any operation carried out, 

8 funded, or arranged by an entity described 

9 in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 

10 504(b)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 

11 794(b)(1)) that receives Federal financial 

12 assistance, even if the entity does not use 

13 the Federal financial assistance for the op14 eration. 

15 ‘‘(B) RECIPIENT.—A State shall be consid16 ered to receive Federal financial assistance for 

17 a program or activity if the program or activ18 ity— 

19 ‘‘(i) receives the assistance from an 

20 intermediary; and 

21 ‘‘(ii) is the intended recipient under 

22 the statutory provision through which the 

23 intermediary receives the assistance. 

24 ‘‘(C) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

25 paragraph shall be construed to suggest that, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
17 

•S 3823 IS

1 for purposes of this subsection or such section 

2 504— 

3 ‘‘(i) the term ‘program or activity’ 

4 would not include the operation described 

5 in subparagraph (A)(ii), in the absence of 

6 this paragraph; or 

7 ‘‘(ii) a State described in subpara8 graph (B) would not be considered to re9 ceive Federal financial assistance for a 

10 program or activity, in the absence of this 

11 paragraph.’’. 

12 (c) TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABIL13 ITIES ACT OF 1990.—Section 203 of the Americans with 

14 Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12133) is amended— 

15 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before 

16 ‘‘The’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(b) WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.— 

19 ‘‘(1) WAIVER.—A State’s receipt or use of Fed20 eral financial assistance for any program or activity 

21 of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign im22 munity, under the 11th amendment to the Constitu23 tion or otherwise, to a suit brought by any employee 

24 or person alleging a violation of this title (including 

25 regulations promulgated under section 204, 229, or 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
18 

•S 3823 IS

1 244) or section 503, or otherwise aggrieved, by that 

2 program or activity for equitable, legal, or other re3 lief authorized by or through this Act. 

4 ‘‘(2) ABROGATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLA5 TION.—In addition to the abrogation of sovereign 

6 immunity already accomplished by section 502, a 

7 State’s sovereign immunity, under the 11th amend8 ment to the Constitution or otherwise, is abrogated 

9 for any suit brought by any employee or person for 

10 equitable, legal, or other relief authorized by or 

11 through this Act, for conduct that violates the 14th 

12 amendment (including the constitutional rights in13 corporated in the 14th amendment) and that also 

14 violates this title (including regulations promulgated 

15 under section 204, 229, or 244) or section 503. 

16 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

17 ‘‘(A) PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY.— 

18 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘pro19 gram or activity’ has the meaning given 

20 the term in section 504(b) of the Rehabili21 tation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794(b)). 

22 ‘‘(ii) OPERATIONS INCLUDED.—The 

23 term includes any operation carried out, 

24 funded, or arranged by an entity described 

25 in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
19 

•S 3823 IS

1 504(b)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 

2 794(b)(1)) that receives Federal financial 

3 assistance, even if the entity does not use 

4 the Federal financial assistance for the op5 eration. 

6 ‘‘(B) RECIPIENT.—A State shall be consid7 ered to receive Federal financial assistance for 

8 a program or activity if the program or activ9 ity— 

10 ‘‘(i) receives the assistance from an 

11 intermediary; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) is the intended recipient under 

13 the statutory provision through which the 

14 intermediary receives the assistance. 

15 ‘‘(C) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

16 paragraph shall be construed to suggest that, 

17 for purposes of this subsection or such section 

18 504— 

19 ‘‘(i) the term ‘program or activity’ 

20 would not include the operation described 

21 in subparagraph (A)(ii), in the absence of 

22 this paragraph; or 

23 ‘‘(ii) a State described in subpara24 graph (B) would not be considered to re25 ceive Federal financial assistance for a 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
20 

•S 3823 IS

1 program or activity, in the absence of this 

2 paragraph.’’. 

3 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 (a) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF

5 1967.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a particular 

7 program or activity, paragraphs (1) and (3) of sec8 tion 7(g) of the Age Discrimination in Employment 

9 Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(g)) apply to conduct oc10 curring on or after the day, after the date of enact11 ment of this Act, on which a State first receives or 

12 uses Federal financial assistance for that program 

13 or activity. Section 7(g)(2) of the Age Discrimina14 tion in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 

15 626(g)(2)) applies to all civil actions pending on that 

16 date of enactment or filed thereafter. 

17 (2) PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY; RECEIVES FEDERAL

18 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—The definition and rule 

19 specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 

20 7(g)(3) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 626(g)(2)) shall 

21 apply for purposes of this subsection. 

22 (b) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990.— 

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a particular 

24 program or activity, paragraphs (1) and (3) of sec25 tion 107(c) and paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
21 

•S 3823 IS

1 203(b) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

2 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12117(c), 12133(b)) apply to con3 duct occurring on or after the day, after the date of 

4 enactment of this Act, on which a State first re5 ceives or uses Federal financial assistance for that 

6 program or activity. Sections 107(c)(2) and 

7 203(b)(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

8 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12117(c)(2), 12133(b)(2)) apply to 

9 all civil actions pending on that date of enactment 

10 or filed thereafter. 

11 (2) PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY; RECEIVES FEDERAL

12 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—The definition and rule 

13 specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 

14 107(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(c)(3)) shall 

15 apply for purposes of this subsection. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS