(relaying Wonderland “received a letter during shutdown saying that a WWL driver submitted their name to OSHA”). Marks’s grievances about these problems contain no reference to his disability, and he was using his motorized hand truck at the time that he encountered these deficiencies. See Cross-Mot., Exhs. 31 (Marks’s Wonderland Report), 37 (AND Report). The handrail issues thus raised only general workplace-safety concerns. See Marks Dep. 3 at 237-38 (describing his fear “somebody is going to get hurt”); id. at 241 (describing how he had not even noticed the issue until he almost slipped and fell, having nothing to grab onto). As a matter of law, therefore, they do not qualify as protected activity under the ADA. Stouch v. Twp. of Irvington, 354 Fed.Appx. 660, 667 (3d Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>); Washington v. M. Hanna Const. Inc., 299
holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity holding osha complaint not protected activity under ada where plaintiff failed to connect it to his disability holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry recognizing that complaint to supervisor could constitute protected activity where employer was made aware of such complaint