the letter and the spirit of the ADA.” 527 U.S. at 484; see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec. Co., 325 F.3d 652, 656 (5th Cir.2003) ("[N]either the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized the concept of a per se disability under the ADA....”). 4 . Additionally, in his motion for summary judgment, Arrington stated that SW Bell should have accommodated his disability by allowing him additional time to complete his jobs. But Arrington also conceded that he never requested that SW Bell provide him with any reasonable accommodations. 5 . To the extent that Arrington's response to SW Bell's motion for summary judgment can be read to imply that the diabetic foot ulcers on his feet substantially limited his major life activity of "walking,” it fails as a matter of law. Cf. Talk, 165 F.3d at 1025 (<HOLDING>). 6 . Everett's statement refers to a document
holding that a leg deformity which caused moderate difficulty in walking and a limp resulting in walking at a significantly slower pace than the average person were not substantial limitations in the major life activity of walking holding that legal secretary was not regarded as substantially limited in her ability to work when she was told that this job is too stressful for you because you have colitis employers statement was limited to this job and employer offered a good recommendation to give to future employers holding that evidence that plaintiff could walk only four hours a day was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled holding that a plaintiffs ability to walk was not substantially limited simply because she walked with a limp moved slower than other people and was required to wear special orthopedic shoes holding plaintiffs who claimed their ability to walk sit stand and sleep was moderately below average were not disabled