(1) mistakenly believed that she had a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities, or (2) mistakenly believed that an actual, nonlim iting impairment substantially limited one or more of her major life activities. See Sutton, 527 U.S. at 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139. To establish that Amtrak ran afoul of the ADA when it terminated her employment on the basis of a perceived disability, see id. at 490, 119 S.Ct. 2139, plaintiff asserts that Porter was aware that she “used a special chair for her back, walked with a limp, could not stand or walk for long periods of time, and regularly attended physical therapy sessions .... ” (PL’s Opp’n at 43.) Plaintiff further asserts that Porter regarded her as disabled because she informed Porter in 76 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261
holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled 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 in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled