Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)); Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 478, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 2144, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (announcing a restrictive interpretation of “impairment” and “disability” under the ADA), superseded by statute, ADA Amendment Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 112 Stat. 3553 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)); Toyota Motor Mfg. of Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 195, 122 S.Ct. 681, 690, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002) (narrowing scope of protection under the ADA), superseded by statute, ADA Amendment Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325,112 Stat. 3553 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C, § 12102(3)); and Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 621, 127 S.Ct. 2162, 2165, 167 L.Ed.2d 982 (2007) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute, Lilly Ledbetter Fair
holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding that the limitations period for a title vii claim for pay discrimination begins with the first discrete act holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered holding statute of limitations for discriminatory pay practices begins when initial pay decision was made