having an impairment does not make one disabled for purposes of the ADA. Claimants also need to demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity.” Toyota Motor Mfg. Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, -, 122 S.Ct. 681, 690, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002). Dose asserts in his brief that his physical impairments substantially limit him in the major life activity of breathing. Defendant BVU does not contest, nor can it, that breathing is a major life activity. See Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017, 1027 (8th Cir.1999) (“Major life activities do include functions such as ‘caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.’”) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 36.104); Land v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 164 F.3d 423, 424 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also E.E.O.C. v. United Parcel Serv.,
holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada holding that several instances of asbestosisrelated shortness of breath did not substantially limit major life activity of breathing recognizing sleeping as major life activity 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 reproduction is not a major life activity