evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue for trial exists only when there is sufficient “evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252. B. Disability discrimination claim Gayer alleges disability discrimination under the Ohio anti-discrimination statute, Ohio Revised Code chapter 4112. “To establish a prima facie claim of handicap discrimination under [Ohio Rev.Code § ] 4112.02(A), the person seeking relief must establish that he or she 1) w tions by themselves do not constitute handicaps. Sadinsky v.. EBCO Mfg. Co., 134 Ohio App.3d 54, 730 N.E.2d 395, 398-99 (Ohio Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Nor did Gayer show that Continental believed
holding that restrictions that plaintiff not lift more than twentyfive pounds or bend repetitively are not evidence of a permanent impairment that substantially limits any major life activity holding that the plaintiffs inability to engage in frequent lifting of more than ten pounds  would not significantly restrict her ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes holding that a lifting restriction did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working holding that a twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities holding that an employees inability to lift more than 30 to 40 pounds did not substantially limit his ability to engage in ordinary daily activities