With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). William produced no evidence to meet this standard. He has not suggested that his inability to work more than eight hours a day prevents him from performing an entire class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Rather, all the record indicates is that he is unable to perform the slitterman position with the mandatory overtime. This is not enough of a limitation to constitute a disability under the ADA, because “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); compare Burns v. Coca-Cola Enter., Inc., 222 F.3d 247, 256 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, William’s major life activity of

A: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea
B: holding that a plaintiff whose lifting restrictions allowed him to lift 50pound containers for a maximum of three to four hours a day did not render him disabled under the ada because the restrictions only prohibited him from performing one of the discrete tasks associated with the single particular job of a loading truck driver
C: holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him
D: holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada
D.