6-7). Plaintiff attempts to excuse his non-compliance with these aspects of the interactive process with defendants by dismissing defendants’ efforts as “simply providing] plaintiff with some paperwork, then flatly refusing] to take any further steps until plaintiff provided unnecessary medical information.” Plaintiffs Response at 25. Plaintiff contends that the medical information was “unnecessary” because plaintiffs obesity is obvious. Id. However, counsel’s reliance upon a defense witness’s speculation that obesity might be listed as an example of a disability in defendants’ ADA policies is unsupported by the record of evidence. Moreover, obesity, by itself, may not constitute an ADA-recognized disability. See EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 468 F.3d 436, 441 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Cook v. Rhode Island, Dep’t of Mental Health,
holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry holding that only obesity that results from a physiological disorder may constitute a disability under the ada holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability