for the nonmovant, then summary judgment should not be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Burk, 948 F.2d at 492; Woodsmith, 904 F.2d at 1247. With these standards in mind, the court turns to consideration of Susie’s Motion for Summary Judgment. B. Analysis 1. Requirements under ADA, The ADA provides in pertinent part that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual____” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Three criteria must be met in order to establish a violation of this s 7, 541 (N.D.Ill.1993) (denying motion to dismiss ADA claims where plaintiff alleged that defendant law school discriminated against him because of his epilepsy); Reynolds v. Brock, 815 F.2d 571, 573 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of this summary judgment motion
holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act holding under rehabilitation act that epileptics are handicapped individuals holding rehabilitation act applicable holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable