Q: What did you say? A: I said, okay. Thank you. Q: Do you recall anything more that was said by either you or Mr. [Mauk] during this conversation? A: No, sir. Q: Did you tell Mr. [Mauk] that you would be willing to come back and work the hours that you had normally working at Vulcan? A: No, sir. Q: Would you have been willing to come back and do that at that point? A:' No, sir. Q: Not even after 59 or whatever number of days off? A: No, sir. PI. Dep. at 143 1. 2 — 144 1. 8. Contrary to plaintiffs assertions, therefore, the fact that plaintiff was told he could return to work if he were willing to work seventy hour weeks indicates that defendant’s supervisors did not regard him as having a substantially limiting impairment. See Gaul v. AT & T, Inc., 955 F.Supp. 346, 351 (D.N.J.1997) (<HOLDING>); Penchishen v. The Stroh Brewery Co., 932
holding that employer did not regard plaintiff as disabled where it repeatedly attempted to return him to work holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled holding that an employer did not regard an employee with an impaired ankle as disabled where it encouraged her to work in a position that required walking holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project 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