the large vacuum cleaner used in the library, the mop bucket, the carpet extractor, moving furniture or a loaded trash barrel all would require Dose to push, pull, or lift more than 25 to 30 pounds. It was only after BVU concluded that Dose’s work restriction would prevent him from performing significantly more than 25% of his duties that he was placed on leave. Once Dose’s work restriction was modified, he was allowed to return to work. This demonstrates that BVU was not acting on erroneous perceptions of Dose’s ability to work but was taking action only in response to a newly imposed work restriction under which BVU believed Dose was unable to perform 75% of the duties required for the position of custodian. As a result, the court concludes that Dose’s regarded as 706 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). While Dose asserts that he did not mean his
holding that white woman who was not object of discrimination but who alleged injury because of race discrimination against another was a person aggrieved within the meaning of title vii holding that title vii prohibits discrimination based on any race including caucasian holding defendant employer knew plaintiff had engaged in activity protected under title vii where plaintiff was identified as a potential witness by a coworker plaintiff in a deposition given in a prior title yii employment discrimination action brought by the coworker against the employer holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding in context of title vii race discrimination claim that threatening a coworker with bodily harm was nondiscriminatory reason for suspension