the “major life activity” allegedly impaired is Parisi’s ability to work as a route deliveryman. See Wemick, 91 F.3d at 383 (finding that the district court properly concluded that the major life activity at issue was plaintiffs ability to work where the complaint focused exclusively on such concerns). In the Court’s view, the plaintiff fails, as a matter of law, to allege that he suffers from a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. With respect to a claim of a disability that substantially limits one’s ability to work, “[a]n impairment that disqualifies a person from only a narrow range of jobs is not considered a substantially limiting one.” Heilweil, 32 F.3d at 722 (citing Daley v. Koch, 892 F.2d 212, 215 A.D.2d Cir.1989); Maulding v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 694, 698 (8th Cir.1992)(<HOLDING>); Daley v. Koch, 892 F.2d 212, 215 (2d
holding sufficient evidence supported the departments conclusion that the worker failed to prove her sensitivity to chemicals was fairly traceable to her employment holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that a pharmacologists sensitivity to chemicals which prevented her from working in a lab did not substantially limit her employment opportunities holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding that a lifting restriction did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working