With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of this evidence, we have no difficulty concluding that Baxter perceived Cline to be significantly restricted in his ability to perform the role of night maintenance supervisor. It remains to be determined whether the night maintenance supervisor’s position qualifies as a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, as opposed to a single, particular job. We have previously held that to sustain its burden on this point, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer “regarded the plaintiff] as handicapped in his or her ability to work by finding the employee’s impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved.” Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 935 (4th Cir.1986); see also Halperin, 128 F.3d at 199; Gupton v. Com. of Virginia, 14 F.3d 203, 205 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In the case sub judice, we hold that Cline’s

A: holding that a plaintiffs ability to work is substantially limited when his impairment foreclosed him generally from obtaining jobs doing the type of work plaintiff has chosen as his field
B: holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training
C: holding that an employer regards an employee as handicapped in his or her ability to work by find ing the employees impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved
D: holding that for a plaintiff to prove that he has a record of impairment under 42 usc  121022b there must be a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities
A.