qualifies in general, there is nonetheless an unresolved issue as to whether it qualifies in Ms. Abbott’s particular case. Wé address each of these assertions. 1. Reproduction Writ Large. The question of whether reproduction in large constitutes a major life activity under the ADA is not free from doubt. The ADA itself does not define the term “major life activities,” and the few available judicial precedents reveal divergent opinions. Compare Pacourek v. Inland Steel Co., 916 F.Supp. 797, 804 (N.D.Ill.1996) (finding that reproduction is a major life activity) and Erickson v. Board of Govs, of State Colleges, 911 F.Supp. 316, 323 (N.D.Ill.1995) (same) and Cain v. Hyatt, 734 F.Supp. 671, 679 (E.D.Pa. 1990) (same) with Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 95 F.3d 674, 677 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) and Zatarain v. WDSU-Television, Inc., 881
holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity holding that reproduction is major fife activity pursuant to ada holding that reproduction is not a major life activity recognizing sleeping as major life activity