With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the plaintiff suffer an adverse employment action.” Id. In this case, the central dispute over Spees’s ADA claim revolves around whether she meets the definition of a “disabled” person. A “disability” is defined as “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (2006). This section of the Act was amended in 2009, subsequent to the events giving rise to Spees’s lawsuit. But we must analyze Spees’s claims pursuant to the earlier version (provided above) because the amendments to the ADA do not apply retroactively. See Milholland v. Sumner County Bd. of Educ., 569 F.3d 562, 567 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Spees does not argue that her pregnancy

A: holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government
B: holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
C: holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable
D: holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct
D.