at *4, 2001 U.S. Dist LEXIS 22783, at *13 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 28, 2001) ("Because 'this is not one of the rare cases in which the [plaintiff’s] impairments tire so severe that [her] substantial foreclosure from the job market is obvious,' at a minimum she was required to come up with some evidence of the types of jobs in her area from which she would have been excluded.”) (quoting EEOC v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 243 F.3d 1012, 1017 (7th Cir.2001)). 31 . Compare Mondzelewski, 162 F.3d at 785-86 (finding vocational expert's report was sufficient to show the plaintiff was significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes), with Cade v. Consol. Rail Corp., No. Civ.A. 98-5941, 2002 WL 922150, at *11-12 (E.D.Pa. May 7, 2002) (<HOLDING>); Balls v. AT & T Corp., 28 F.Supp.2d 970, 975
holding that similar impairments do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her impairment rendered the plaintiff unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes within a geographical area to which she had reasonable access holding plaintiff not substantially limited in working because plaintiff failed to present evidence of disqualification because of knee condition from any jobs in the geographic area to which she had reasonable access holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee