Qualex. Meyer has failed to show any degree of excessive control by defendant Kodak over its subsidiary, defendant Qualex. Therefore, this court finds that summary judgment in favor of defendant Kodak is appropriate. A. Withdrawal of the offer of employment. The ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), or “being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C). The ADA further provides t failed to produce any evidence that defendant Qualex had any knowledge of a claimed disability on the part of plaintiff, or any other reason to perceive plaintiff as being disabled. See Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., 47 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Hoffman v. Baltimore City Public
holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding that employer may be held liable under  1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee