With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to others. Summary judgment dismissing Nunes’s ADA claim was therefore inappropriate. That judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 . The ADA mentions only threats to others, whereas the EEOC regulations expand the term "direct threat” to include threats to the disabled person herself. We have not yet ruled on whether the direct threat defense includes threats to one’s self and decline to do so in the present case because the issue was not addressed in the district court and has not been properly presented in this appeal. We note, however, that two courts in other circuits have considered this issue and have reached different results. Compare Kohnke v. Delta Airlines, 932 F.Supp. 1110, 1111 (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>), with Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc., 97

A: holding ada claim was discharged
B: holding that direct threat under the ada includes threats to self
C: holding that expansion of the ada to encompass threats to self is untenable because the ada mentions only threats to others
D: holding that threats to inflict financial or personal harm are not true threats where no ones personal safety is threatened
C.