If the employer satisfies that burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the proffered reason is a pretext for forbidden retaliation.” Coursey v. Univ. of Maryland E. Shore, 577 Fed.Appx. 167, 175 (4th Cir.2014)(internal quotations and citations omitted). Ofc. Schmidt’s filing of an EEOC complaint on October 2, 2012 alleging retaliation for his November 29, 2011 complaint regarding disability discrimination satisfies the first element of his claim. ECF No. 42-14. Defendant argues that Ofc. Schmidt’s hernia is not recognized as a disability under the ADA, ECF No. 39-2 at 20, and until recent years Defendant’s position was clearly supported by relevant case law. See Lundberg v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. CIV. 01-2286(DWF/JSM), 2003 WL 21402605, at *5 (D.Minn. June 17, 2003)(<HOLDING>). However, Defendant’s argument fails to take
holding that plaintiffs hernia condition was not sufficient to render her disabled under the ada holding that plaintiffs claim that she was disabled because her major life activity of breathing was substantially limited by her respiratory condition would provide a basis for protection under the ada holding that plaintiffs inability to stand for more than one hour did not render her disabled holding that evidence that defendant provided plaintiff with certain accommodations for her condition was insufficient to establish that defendant regarded her as disabled for purposes of ada absent showing that the defendant maintained any misperceptions about her condition holding that plaintiff established for purposes of summary judgment a material question as to whether he was disabled because of hernia surgery