to ... [his] terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112. To state a claim for employment discrimination under the statute, a plaintiff must allege: “[1] that he had a disability within the meaning of the ADA, [2] that he was ‘qualified’ for the position ..., and [3] that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.” Swanks v. WMATA 179 F.3d 929, 934 (D.C.Cir.1999). Because a plaintiff survives a motion to dismiss only if he alleges “sufficient factual matter ... to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (internal quotation marks omitted), Blackwell’s complaint must allege facts plausibly suggesting that each element has been satisfied to survive SecTek’s moti 94, 106-07 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). Blackwell’s complaint does not specifically
holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that blindness in one eye did not automatically constitute a disability holding that an individual alleged a disability under the ada because he was blind in one eye and had severe diabetes causing him to fall asleep at unpredictable times holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability