Court’s to proceed to the pretext inquiry even when the Court concludes the plaintiff has not presented a prima facie under Section 510. See Rath v. Selection Research, Inc., 978 F.2d 1087, 1090 (8th Cir.1992) ("[The Eighth Circuit] doubtfs] that [the employee] has established a prima facie case of retaliation. However, [the employee’s] failure of proof is even more obvious if we focus upon the third or pretext stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry.”). 7 . To the extent that Counts Two or Three assert that ARIC interfered with Manning’s ability to receive additional STD benefits, the Court’s February 24, 2009, order concluding ARIC acted in good faith precludes a finding that ARIC acted with the specific intent to interfere with Manning’s STD benefits. See Godfrey, 89 F.3d at 759 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Court’s conclusion
holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled holding that an employers goodfaith determination that an employee was not disabled prevented as a matter of law a finding that the employer acted pretextually holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled holding that an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job