WL 760811, at 4-6 (M.D.Tenn. Aug. 29, 1994), report and recommendation approved by, No. 1:93-0211, 1994 WL 761231 (M.D.Tenn. Oct. 31, 1994); Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 131 F.R.D. 1, 7-9 (D.D.C.1990). In a perceived disability case, the issue of whether an employer regarded a job applicant as disabled within the meaning of the Act is a matter that the jury decides. See Cook v. State of R.I., Dep’t ofMHRH, 10 F.3d 17, 25 (1st Cir.1993). With regard to this question, a jury may conclude that an employer viewed a prospective employee as unable to perform a major life activity, namely working, if the former, in rejecting an applicant, betrays the belief that the individual’s impairment prevents her from performing a wide range of jobs. Id. at 26. See also Forrisi, 794 F.2d at 935 (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the plaintiffs are
holding that an employer regards an employee as handicapped in his or her ability to work by find ing the employees impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved 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 a plaintiffs ability to work is substantially limited when his impairment foreclosed him generally from obtaining jobs doing the type of work plaintiff has chosen as his field holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled