neck pain — that substantially limits five major life activities: working, walking, standing, sitting, and lifting. We think the record before us is devoid of any evidence supporting this contention. First, McDonough has not pointed us to any evidence to establish that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of working. “Working can be considered a major life activity.” Ramos-Echevarría, 659 F.3d at 188. Nonetheless, despite her back and neck pain, McDonough was able to do her job satisfactorily with the accommodations provided by the Postal Service, specifically, a four-hour work day, a stool to rest her knee on while she sorted the mail, and a cart instead of a satchel to help her deliver the mail. See, e.g., Whitlock v. Mac-Gray, Inc., 345 F.3d 44, 46 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Mays v. Principi, 301 F.3d 866, 869
holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case holding that employees requests for accommodation were not protected activity because the evidence did not show that he had a reasonable good faith belief that he was disabled or perceived as disabled holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights