F.3d 203, 204-05 (4th Cir.) (rejecting claim under Rehabilitation Act because employee failed to show that an allergy to tobacco smoke foreclosed her opportunity to obtain jobs in her respective field), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 59, 130 L.Ed.2d 17 (1994). We therefore conclude that the medical diagnosis of Hughes’ epicondylitis is insufficient to establish that her condition renders her legally handicapped under the Rehabilitation Act. Moreover, § 794(a) of the Rehabilitation Act requires a claimant to demonstrate that the discharge was “solely by reason of her or his disability,” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Hughes has failed to establish a jury question on the issue of whether she was discharged solely because of her handicap. See Little v. F.B.I., 1 F.3d 255, 259 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Hughes’ only evidence to support handicap
holding that claimant failed to show that he was terminated solely because of handicap holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant holding ongoing asthma condition that caused repeated absences from work was not a handicap holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position