impairment that significantly restricted his ability to perform “either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” McKay, 110 F.3d at 372. In order to carry this burden, a plaintiff must introduce evidence, expert or otherwise, relating to his vocational skills or training, the geographical area to which he has access, or the number and type of jobs which demand similar training from which he would also be disqualified because of his disability. The failure to introduce such evidence is fatal when faced with a motion for summary judgment. See Bolton v. Scrivner, 36 F.3d 939, 943-44 (10th Cir.1994) (affirming award of summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had introduced no such evidence); Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc. 928 F.Supp. 37, 50-52 (D.Maine 1996) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 105 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.1997); Howard v.
holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action  holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end holding that a plaintiffs failure to provide evidence of general employment demographics is fatal at summary judgment holding that a plaintiffs failure to submit evidence of continuing treatment by a health care provider as defined by the regulations was fatal to a plaintiffs fmla interference claim regardless of the defendants alleged failure to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure medical certification deficiencies