49). In addition, the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that Plaintiffs impairment substantially limits her major life activity of standing. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her condition requires “that she not stand for more than one-hour periods.” (Doc. No. 2, ¶ 11). Although Plaintiff purportedly provided several doctors’ notes to her supervisors containing this restriction, such notes were not submitted as part of the record. (First Reis Depo. at p. 88). There is no other evidence of record from Plaintiffs treating physicians that documents Plaintiffs condition or the limitations that it imposes on Plaintiff. The record contains no medical records or other documentation. Nor does the record contain any comparator evidence. Moreover, Plaintiffs depositio 996) (<HOLDING>). Two of the regional Circuit Courts of Appeal,
holding that a permanent lifting restriction of no more than twentyfive pounds on a continuous basis is not substantially limiting holding that a twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities holding that restriction limiting continuous lifting of containers weighing fortyfour to fiftysix pounds does not substantially limit any major life activity holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity holding that a lifting restriction did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working