an auto shop. She also testified she could work at more physically demanding jobs, such as making pizzas at a local restaurant, stocking shelves and running cash registers at the Dollar General and working in an emergency room. While Gretillat apparently did not get any of these jobs, only the United States Postal Service (USPS) turned her down because she was physically unable to perform the job. It is well settled, however, that an inability to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation on working. Philip v. Ford Motor Co., 328 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir.2003). “Instead, a plaintiff must show that because of his impairment he has suffered a significant reduction in meaningful employment opportunities.” Id.; accord Brunko v. Mercy Hosp., 260 F.3d 939, 942 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because Gretillat has introduced no evidence
recognizing that the trial court is not precluded from enforcing its judgment even though an appeal is pending holding that forbidding felons from working as union officials is not punishment holding that one who is precluded from working a narrow range of jobs is not disabled holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited holding that court should consider presumptive range for defendant who was sentenced in mitigated range to determine if prior conviction is felony