not allege, nor does she present any evidence, that she provided Porter or Amtrak with any medical records or informed Porter or the company that she considered herself disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Nor does she present evidence that anyone at Amtrak mistakenly believed either that she had a physical impairment that substantially limited any major life activity, or that an actual nonlimiting impairment she had substantially limited a major life activity. Porter’s admitted knowledge of plaintiffs back problems and Amtrak having provided plaintiff with an oversized chair does not, without more, establish that she or any other Amtrak employee perceived plaintiff as disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See, e.g., Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., 252 F.3d 696, 703 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Kellogg v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 233 F.3d
holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation 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