one factor to consider is the “duration or expected duration of the impairment.”). More importantly, under the actual disability prong, the relevant determination is whether the plaintiff was disabled at the time of the adverse employment action. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs. v. Howard, 429 S.W.3d 782, 787-89 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (stating that once the employer shows the employee was not disabled at the time of discriminatory act, the employee must present evidence that she was in fact disabled); EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 618 (5th Cir.2009); Samuels v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 F.3d 797, 802 (8th Cir.2006); Swanson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 268 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir. 2001); Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). Vasquez’s amended petition provides in
holding that a disability must be evaluated at the time of the challenged employment action holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action to be redressable by the court holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated