"there may be some conceptual difficulty in defining 'major life activities’ to include work.” Id. at 2151. As the Court went on to explain, "even the EEOC has expressed reluctance to define 'major life activities’ to in urts may look to the EEOC's regulations for guidance, it has cautioned that the regulations are not binding authority. See Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (stating that, ”[a]s an administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing agency, [the] Guidelines, while not controlling upon courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts may properly resort [for] guidance”). 7 . See Monette v. Electronic Data Systems, Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1183 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629,
holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation