With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Milton in response to his ailment when it could have been easily accommodated by a dispensation, then Defendants violated the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Conditions apparently less severe than Milton’s have been held to meet ADA or Rehabilitation Act requirements in the past. See, e.g., Guice-Mills v. Derwinski, 967 F.2d 794, 797 (2d Cir.1992) (finding that nurse suffering from depression and migraine headaches is “handicapped” under Rehabilitation Act); Harmer v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 831 F.Supp. 1300, 1306 (E.D.Va. 1993) (considering plaintiffs bronchial asthma a “disability” under the ADA for purposes of deciding if employer failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff by refusing to ban smoking in plaintiffs work area); Watson v. United States, 1985 WL 9646 (D.D.C.) (<HOLDING>). The Court does not here rule that Milton’s

A: holding rehabilitation act applicable
B: holding that an employee could not recover damages and medical monitoring costs under the federal employers liability act unless or until he manifested symptoms of a disease
C: holding that teacher with long dormant disease of tuberculosis that had recently reoccurred was handicapped within meaning of rehabilitation act
D: holding that plaintiff with obstructive airway disease and symptoms of fatigue headaches and myalgias is handicapped under the rehabilitation act
D.