shows that plaintiff's doctor, Dr. Emad Zeitouneh, discussed with her "degenerative changes” in her physical condition on December 10, 1999 (see Ford Deck, Ex. 25), and recommended physical therapy on May 24, 2000 (see id.), but none of the medical records even mention surgery as a possibility. 35 . Title VII, by contrast, exempts from its prohibitions a host of employers. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). 36 . Hunter v. Ark Rests. Corp. held that individuals cannot be held liable under the DCHRA. 3 F.Supp.2d 9, 15-17 (D.D.C.1998). However, that case was decided before the final Wallace opinion was published. 37 . Perceived disability causes of action are recognized under the DCHRA, see Chang, 846 A.2d at 324, and are scrutinized under the same standards that are enunciated in Sutton. See id. (<HOLDING>) (quoting Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., 527
holding that for a plaintiff to prove that he has a record of impairment under 42 usc  121022b there must be a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities holding that an individual whose ability to lift is substantially impaired qualifies as a disabled person within the meaning of the ada holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada recognizing that the supreme court has held that a person is regarded as disabled within the meaning of the ada if a covered entity mistakenly believes that the persons actual nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities  holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled