however, the Court’s conclusion is mediated by the facts presented in this ease. See id. The Court reaches its determination after careful consideration of the nature of Vincent’s illness, including the disease’s ability to incapacitate, Vincent’s history of sickle cell attacks, the job functions involved and the unpredictable nature of both Vincent’s disability and the job of a security guard. In addition, the Court notes that the position of a security guard is not one in which Vincent can set aside the pertinent task at hand and return to it after a crisis has passed. As the Fourth Circuit noted in an analogous context, “[sjafeguarding ... is a task that cannot be reasonably abandoned for even ‘a brief period.’” Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corporation, 104 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Court acknowledges that Vincent never
holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act holding ada claim was discharged holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that an epileptic shoe salesman charged with maintaining store security was not a qualified individual under the ada holding there was no individual liability under titles i ii or iii of the ada