the ADA. See McKay, 110 F.3d at 373 (citing Jasany v. United States Postal Serv., 755 F.2d 1244, 1249 (6th Cir.1985)) (rejecting the plaintiffs ADA claim because her impairment “disqualified] her from only the narrow range of assembly line manufacturing jobs that require repetitive motion or frequent lifting of more than ten pounds,” and thus did “not significantly restrict her ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes”); Thompson, 121 F.3d at 540 (finding that a registered nurse’s inability to lift more than 25 pounds on a regular basis did not render her disabled because she presented “no evidence that the restrictions on her ability to perform total patient care preclude[d] her from ... an entire class of jobs”); Ray v. Glidden Co., 85 F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Gutridge v. Clure, 153 F.3d 898, 900-01 (8th
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 an individual whose ability to lift is substantially impaired qualifies as a disabled person within the meaning of the ada holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada holding that a plaintiff whose lifting restrictions allowed him to lift 50pound containers for a maximum of three to four hours a day did not render him disabled under the ada because the restrictions only prohibited him from performing one of the discrete tasks associated with the single particular job of a loading truck driver holding that the plaintiff who was under a 40pound lifting restriction was not disabled as defined by the ada and listing five cases from various circuits including our own in which courts have held that weight restrictions alone do not render a plaintiff disabled