whether the plaintiff has an impairment. See Poindexter v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 168 F.3d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir.1999) (citing Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 2202, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998)). Second, the court considers whether the major life activity upon which the plaintiff relies constitutes a major life activity under the ADA. See id. Third, the court asks whether the impairment serves to substantially limit the major life activity. See id. Neither party disputes that plaintiff suffers from one or more physical impairments. Plaintiff claims to be substantially limited in the major life activities of lifting and working. Lifting is considered a major life activity under the ADA. See Lowe v. Angelo’s Italian Foods, Inc., 87 F.3d 1170, 1172 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Working also constitutes a major life
holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding that an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate holding that an individual whose ability to lift is substantially impaired qualifies as a disabled person within the meaning of the ada holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983