handicapped 2) suffered adverse employment action, at least in part, because of the handicap and 3) could safely and substantially perform the essential functions of the job in question.” Miller v. Premier Indus. Corp., 136 Ohio App.3d 662, 737 N.E.2d 594, 599 (Ohio Ct.App.2000) (citations omitted). Disability discrimination, according to the Ohio statute, includes discrimination on the basis of either “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” or “being regarded as having a physical or mental impairment.” Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.01(A)(13). The Ohio statute was modeled after the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Ohio courts look to the ADA and its interpretation by federal courts for g ., 110 F.3d 369, 373 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Ohio courts have also held that lifting
holding that an employees inability to lift more than 30 to 40 pounds did not substantially limit his ability to engage in ordinary daily activities holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs holding that similar impairments do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her impairment rendered the plaintiff unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes within a geographical area to which she had reasonable access holding that the plaintiffs inability to engage in frequent lifting of more than ten pounds  would not significantly restrict her ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity