First, a person must be an "individual with a disability" in order to receive the protections provided by the ADA. A "disability" is "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of [the] individual." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(a). NOCO does not dispute that the plaintiff suffers from epilepsy or that epilepsy constitutes a disability under the ADA, a proposition that is well established. See, e.g., 29 C.F.IR. 1615.103(1)(ii) (including epilepsy in the definition of "physical or mental impairment"); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 488, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (using epilepsy as an example of a condition that is included in the definition); LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683
holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry