for guidance in our interpretation of Ohio law.”). Gayer argues that she falls under the protection of the Ohio handicap discrimination statute because Continental regarded her as being disabled. She points out that Continental’s refusal to employ her as an ASA was based upon her inability to lift over 40 pounds. According to Gayer, this action constitutes evidence that Continental regarded her as being disabled. We disagree. For “a covered entity [to] entertain misperceptions about the individual-it must either believe that one has a substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or that one has a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not so limiting.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (<HOLDING>). But Gayer has not demonstrated that
holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation holding that the plaintiffs who were nearsighted job applicants with fully correctable vision failed to state a claim that the airline regarded them as disabled in violation of the ada holding that plaintiffs complaint of back pains and request for simple stands to assist with lifting made to his employer were insuffi cient to establish that the employer regarded him as disabled because he at no point indicated to the employer that he was disabled within the meaning of the ada holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled holding that no ada violation was shown because the disabled were not denied benefits that were otherwise available