With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleges that Amtrak violated the ADA when it terminated her employment as an HR Consultant because Amtrak perceived her as disabled. (See Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 37. ) Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework applicable to ADA claims, see Marshall, 130 F.3d at 1099, plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by demonstrating that Amtrak regarded her as having “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limit[ed] one or more of [her] major life activities .... ” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(2)(C), 12102(2)(A); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). In order to fall within the ADA’s definition of being regarded as having a physical impairment, plaintiff must establish that d 789, 798 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because plaintiff has not made out a prima

A: holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled
B: holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled
C: holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project
D: holding that an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate
B.