work. By plaintiff’s own testimony, plaintiff was told that he could return to work if he would be willing to work seventy hour weeks: Q: Now, what did you and Mr. [Mauk] talk about? Give me the conversation as best as you can recall it. A: I had told Mr. [Mauk], well, I’m — this is the 59th day. That I’m just calling to see where am I supposed to report to tomorrow and so forth, et cetera. And he said, well, Danny, we don’t have no job for you. Your job has been filled. I said, what do you mean? He says, you couldn’t work the 70 hours a week so we didn’t need you any longer. He said if I could work 70 hours a week, my job would be available. But until then my job had been filled and that there wasn’t a place in Vulcan’s organization for a 50-hour-a-week emplo . 671, 675 (E.D.Pa.1996) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 116 F.3d 469 (3d Cir.1997). At most,
holding that an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job holding that an employer did not regard an employee with an impaired ankle as disabled where it encouraged her to work in a position that required walking holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project holding that employer did not regard plaintiff as disabled where it repeatedly attempted to return him to work