” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 492, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)) (emphasis in original). Because there is no evidence in the record of any other compromised major life activities, we may consider William’s restriction on working more than eight hours a day. According to the regulations, a person’s ability to work is substantially limited for the purposes of the ADA if he or she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in v was not substantially lim that any of his physical impairments rise to the level of a disability under the ADA, he is unable to satisfy the first element of a prima facie case. See Penny v. United Parcel Serv., 128 F.3d 408, 417 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). C. There is insufficient evidence to show
holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal holding that a title vii plaintiff need not plead the elements of a mcdonnell douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct