490-91, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). When viewed in the light most favorable to Lander, the evidence demonstrates that he failed to establish that ABF believed that his physical impairment substantially limited his ability to lift. See id. at 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (stating that for a plaintiff to succeed on a “regarded as” claim, he must demonstrate that his employer “mistakenly believes that a ... nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities”). ABF believed Lander’s ability to lift was impaired only to the extent outlined in his medical records, which contained lifting restrictions that considerably exceeded what constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity. See Marinelli v. City of Erie, Pa., 216 F.3d 354, 364 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Rakity v. Dillon Cos., Inc., 302
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 did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working holding that a permanent lifting restriction of no more than twentyfive pounds on a continuous basis is not substantially limiting holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity holding that a twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities