claim fails because he has not generated a genuine issue of material fact that BVU perceived him as haying an impairment that significantly restricted his ability to perform any major life activities. See Murphy, 527 U.S. at 524, 119 S.Ct. 2133 (concluding summary judgment is proper where ADA plaintiff fails to show that he is “regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs”). Therefore, the court concludes that BVU is entitled to summary judgment on Dose’s - claim that he was discriminated against because he was regarded as being disabled. D. Nondiscriminatory Reason For Dose’s Discharging Even if the court were to assume, arguendo, that Dose has made out a prima facie case, summary judgment is appropriate here becaus Postal Workers Union Nat’l, 192 F.3d 417, 429 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); cf. Phillips v. Union Pac. R.R., 216 F.3d
holding that if all of an employees coworkers knew that he had a heart condition such knowledge would not amount to notice to the employer that the employee was so limited by a disability as to require special accommodations holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act holding that where employer paid benefits under group disability policy to employee under mistaken belief that his condition resulted from illness rather than injury arising out of and in course of employment employees acceptance of such benefits did not bar him from benefits to which he was entitled under workers compensation law and employer was properly allowed credit for payments made under disability policy holding that the employers determination that the employees doctor did not provide a valid certification of disability was permissible the employer could require that employee to return to work under section 510 and that ejven if the employer was mistaken in its evaluation of the employees disability as long as that determination was in good faith and formed the basis of the decision it is permissible under section 510 holding that employer was entitled to discharge employee after he threatened life of his supervisor even if such misconduct was caused by employees disability