With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Toyota Motor, 534 U.S. at 198, 122 S.Ct. 681. Rather, those seeking the Act’s protection must “prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by their impairment] in terms of their own experience ... is substantial.” Id. (citing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 567, 119 S.Ct. 2162, 144 L.Ed.2d 518 (1999)). Moreover, “[a]n individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one whose symptoms vary widely from person to person.” Toyota Motor Mfg., 534 U.S. at 199, 122 S.Ct. 681. This individualized assessment is particularly necessary in the case at hand in light of Plaintiffs fibromyalgia and depression diagnoses. See Labrecque v. Sodexho USA, Inc., 287 F.Supp.2d 100 (D.Mass.2003) (<HOLDING>); Cassimy v. Board of Educ. of Rockford Public

A: holding that suspicion must be individualized
B: holding title vii analysis applies in ada case
C: holding that the legal analysis under ada is rendered complex by the fact that fibromyalgia is highly individualized in its manifestations
D: holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry
C.