ADA.” Id. And, third, it must inquire whether the plaintiffs impairment “substantially limited” the major life activity identified in step two. Id. Ms. Kelly states that she suffers from “fibromyalia, chronic back and leg pain, a condition affecting her quality of life and mobility ... [she] requires an aid at times to walk and suffers pain [ r mental impairment was corrected by some measures did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity and thus had not stated a claim that they were disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Id. Merely having an impairment that affects a major life activity does not make one disabled for purposes of the ADA. See e.g., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Boyce v. New York City Mission Soc., 963
holding that plaintiffs claim that she was disabled because her major life activity of breathing was substantially limited by her respiratory condition would provide a basis for protection under the ada holding that the plaintiffs were not substantially limited in any major life activity because plaintiffs severe myopia was correctable with appropriate lenses holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity holding that reproduction is not a major life activity holding employees inability to do repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels was not sufficient proof that she was substantially limited in major life activity of performing manual tasks