essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability or perceived disability.” Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir.2005). Of the prima facie case, Defendants contest only the second prong, claiming that Plaintiffs diabetes does not amount to a disability under the ADA. (Defs.’ Mem. of Law at 9; Defs.’ Reply Mem. of Law at 3.) The Supreme Court has held “that the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individual’s impairment.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 475, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). As a result, Plaintiff faces an uphill battle to raise a tr D.P.R.2001) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, as it must, the Court examines
holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada holding that plaintiffs evidence showing that defendant refused to allow her to work as flight attendant because of her weight failed to demonstrate that defendant perceived her as substantially limited in any major life activity holding that plaintiff with diabetes requiring medication a fixed meal schedule timely snack breaks and the opportunity to use the bathroom frequently during the work day is not limited as to any major life activity when taking into account the availability of corrective and mitigating measures recognizing sleeping as major life activity holding that reproduction is not a major life activity