Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR NEW TRIAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION, FOR REINSTATEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS BENNETT, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION.973 A. Procedural History.973 B. Factual Background.975 1. AGP and Mr. Knutson’s position .975 2. Mr. Knutson’s injuries and resulting work restrictions.976 3. AGP’s response to Mr. Knutson’s comments in the log book.977 4. Mr. Knutson’s back surgery, his termination, and the videotape.978 5. The “safety” rule Mr. Knutson allegedly breached.980 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.981 A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law .981 1. Applicable standards.981 2. Sufficiency of the evidence — disability discrimination .983 a. Perceived disability claim: Essential elements.983 b. Element 1: Disability.984 i. Substantially limited in major life activity of working, generally.986 ii. Did Mr. Knutson produce sufficient evidence that AGP regarded him as disabled?. OO c. Element 2: Qualified individual. O i. Defining essential functions, generally. O .991 ii. Are pulling bottom ash and rodding the stokers essential functions of the job?. .994 d. Element 3: Causality . .999 3. Sufficiency of the evidence — punitive damages. .999 a. Applicable standards. 1001 b. Analytical framework . 1002 c. Malice or reckless indifference . 1004 Plaintiff’s Motion for Prohibitory Injunction and Reinstatement. B. 1004 1. Prospective equitable relief available under the ADA. 1005 2. Appropriateness of reinstatement. 1011 3. Prohibitory injunction ... d. Front nn.ii. Motion for Attorney’s Fees .1012 C. 1. Applicable standards.1012 2. Reasonable hourly rate.1013 3. Hours reasonably expended.1016 a. Inadequate documentation of time.1016 b. Partial success I dismissed claims ..1016 4. Calculation of attorney fee award.1019 5. Is Mr. Knutson’s counsel entitled to an enhancement of the lodestar?.1019 Recoverable Costs and Expenses.1020 1. Charges for the investigator.1021 2. Other expenses .1022 III. CONCLUSION. .1022 After a two-day jury trial in this perceived disability employment discrimination case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded the plaintiff backpay and punitive damages, apparently having determined that the plaintiff did not suffer any emotional distress damages resulting from the defendant’s unlawful conduct. A flurry of post-trial motions followed the jury’s disposition of this case. In these motions, the plaintiff seeks reinstatement, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. The defendant contests each of the plaintiffs requests and, for its part, seeks judgment as a matter of law, claiming that the plaintiff failed to establish a perceived disability claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and its state-law counterpart under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that, even if he did establish such a claim, he is not entitled to punitive damages. I. INTRODUCTION A. Procedural History On February 21, 2001, plaintiff Timothy J. Knutson filed a complaint against his former employer, defendant Ag Processing, Inc. (“AGP”), seeking damages resulting from his termination on March 13, 2000. In his complaint, Knutson alleged three causes of action: (1) a claim of disability discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (2) a similar claim under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), Iowa Code Chapter 216 et seq.; and (3) a state common law claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. On his disability discrimination claims, Mr. Knutson alleged that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA because he was actually disabled, perceived as disabled, and had a record of disability. With respect to his state common law claim, Mr. Knutson asserted that he was fired in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Defendant AGP answered Mr. Knutson’s complaint on May 11, 2001, denying Mr. Knutson’s claims and asserting various defenses. On September 4, 2002, AGP filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on each of Mr. Knutson’s claims with the exception of his “perceived disability” claim. First, in its motion, defendant AGP claimed that Mr. Knutson was not “disabled” within the meaning of either the ADA or the ICRA because he was not actually disabled nor did he have a record of disability. Second, AGP claimed that Mr. Knutson’s failure-to-accommodate claim was irrelevant because it did not discharge him because of any physical limitation but instead discharged him for violating AGP company policy when he made an unauthorized videotape inside AGP’s energy plant, where he worked. Third, AGP asserted that Mr. Knutson could not establish the necessary elements for his claim of retaliatory discharge because he failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. AGP also asserted that Mr. Knutson could not show that its stated reason for terminating Mr. Knutson’s employment, i.e., the videotaping, was pretextual. After reviewing the parties’ briefings and holding telephonic oral argument on the defendant’s summary judgment motion, in an Order dated October 29, 2002, the court granted AGP’s motion insofar as it argued Mr. Knutson did not have a record of disability and did not generate a genuine issue of material fact regarding his discharge in violation of public policy claim. The court, however, concluded that Mr. Knutson generated triable issues as to whether he had an actual disability and, therefore, denied AGP’s summary judgment motion on that claims. Prior to trial, Mr. Knutson abandoned his claim that he was actually disabled. Thus, the sole claim that remained to be tried to the jury after the court’s ruling on the defendant’s summary judgment motion was Mr. Knut-son’s perceived disability discrimination claim. The parties proceeded to trial beginning February 24, 2003 in Fort Dodge, Iowa. On February 26, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Knutson and awarded him $55,345.72 in backpay and $90,000.00 in punitive damages. The jury did not award him any past or future emotional distress damages and, furthermore, found that AGP failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that it would have terminated Mr. Knutson even if it had not considered his perceived limitations. At trial and in these post-trial motions, Mr. Knutson was represented by Blake Parker of Blake Parker Law Office, Fort Dodge Iowa. On his request for attorney’s fees, Mr. Knutson was also represented by Michael Carroll of Coppola, Sandre, McConville & Carroll, P.C., West Des Moines, Iowa. AGP was represented by Becky Knutson of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Robert, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa. Presently before the court are the defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, Alternatively, New Trial (Doc. No. 64); plaintiffs Motion for Prohibitory Injunction and Reinstatement (Doc. No. 62); and plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 68). The basis of AGP’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, Alternatively, New Trial, which was brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, centers on AGP’s contention that Mr. Knutson failed to establish each of the essential elements of a “regarded as” disability-claim under the ADA. Moreover, AGP claims that Mr. Knutson is not entitled to punitive damages because he did not show that AGP acted with “malice or reckless indifference” to his federally protected rights. In Mr. Knutson’s Motion for Prohibitory Injunction and Reinstatement, he asks the court to utilize its equitable powers and to order reinstatement, in combination with an injunction enjoining the defendant from discriminating against him. AGP resists reinstatement, and Mr. Knut-son has requested front pay only if the court determines that reinstatement is inappropriate. As the prevailing party in a civil rights action, the plaintiff has also requested attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 — the ADA’s fee-shifting statute. Both parties filed a timely resistance to the opposing party’s various post-trial motions, and the court finds that the case is now ripe for disposition. B. Factual Background As will be discussed more fully below, the court recites these facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Knutson, according him the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented at trial. See Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Lake Calhoun Assocs., 928 F.2d 299, 301 (8th Cir.1991). 1. AGP and Mr. Knutson’s position According to the evidence presented at trial, Mr. Knutson began working at AGP’s Eagle Grove, Iowa energy plant on June 24,1988. AGP is an Iowa corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Omaha, Nebraska. APG’s primary business is soybean crushing and producing crude soybean oil and meal. AGP has eight soybean crushing plants located in Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, and Iowa, including one located in Eagle Grove. Though Mr. Knutson performed in many capacities throughout his tenure at AGP, pertinent to this litigation, he was a “boiler operator,” also known as a “process operator.” AGP employed four individuals in this capacity, and their function was to ensure that the boilers ran properly and efficiently. The use of boilers at the Eagle Grove soybean processing plant was critical to AGP’s competitive edge because, through the burning of coal in the boilers, AGP produced its own steam energy for processing, thereby cutting its overhead costs. The job of boiler operator has two main components. The first component is as the control room operator. The boiler operator spends approximately eight hours of a 12-hour shift in this capacity as the control room operator. In the control room, he or she watches gauges and ensures that the temperature is correct and that the boilers are being controlled properly. The boilers at AGP are self-filled with coal, and the controls in the control room designate which boiler is burning coal, how much coal it is burning, and at what rate. The control room operator is able to change the speed that the stokers fill the boilers with coal so as to maintain consistent output. The stokers, in turn, are mechanical devices that feed coal into the boilers by ramming the coal through a fan-like mechanism, which throws the coal into the burner at varying distances, resulting in even disbursement and, consequently, burning of the coal. The control room operator function of the boiler operator position can be performed while sitting and does not entail any physical exertion. The second component of the boiler operator position, in contrast, involves “pulling bottom ash” and “rodding the stokers.” To pull bottom ash, the boiler operator uses a 31-pound rake mounted on wheels to clean and distribute the ash and unburned coal from the boiler. To rod the stokers, the operator uses a rod and, in an overhead motion, punches coal down into the burners. 2. Mr. Knutson’s injuries and resulting work restrictions Mr. Knutson’s medical problems began in 1998. In October of that year, he had surgery to repair a hernia. While hospitalized, he contracted pneumonia and was unable to return to work at AGP until November, 1998. However, when he was able to return to work, he did so without any restrictions. A month later, in December 1998, Mr. Knutson suffered a shoulder injury, which was arguably work-related. His shoulder injury required surgical intervention. When Mr. Knutson returned to work after that surgery, he did so with work restrictions. His physician, Dr. Palit, restricted him from lifting over 25 pounds and from doing any overhead work, such as rodding the stokers. AGP put Mr. Knutson back to work as a boiler operator and had cross-trained utility employees, Ed Askvig and Doug Lilly, to rake ash and rod the stokers. Eventually, Dr. Palit released Mr. Knutson to work without any restrictions. Nevertheless, Mr. Knutson continued to suffer from back pain related to his repaired hernia. Consequently, in May of 1999, he returned to the doctor who had performed the hernia repair, Dr. Warlick. Dr. Warlick imposed work restrictions on Mr. Knutson that precluded him from pulling ash. Mr. Knutson continued as a boiler operator, and AGP again had Mr. Askvig or Mr. Lilly pull the bottom ash. The restrictions did not impede Mr. Knut-son’s ability to perform the control room operator function of his job, nor did they preclude him from rodding the stokers. However, whether it was Mr. Knutson’s choice or simply a convenience, Mr. Askvig or Mr. Lilly ordinarily rodded the stokers, too. Neither Mr. Knutson nor AGP noted the duration of Mr. Knutson’s restrictions. From May of 1999 until October of 1999, Mr. Knutson continued to perform the control room operator function of his boiler operator position and continued to occasionally rod the stokers, with Mr. Askvig or Mr. Lilly raking bottom ash and sometimes rodding the stokers. However, on October 6th and 7th of 1999, the automatic coal feeders were “acting up.” Mr. Knut-son and the other boiler operators in the control room on those days were required to excessively rod the stokers in order to keep the heat levels sufficiently high to produce enough steam to generate power for the plant. On an average day, a boiler operator would rod the stokers once during his or her shift to break up any large pieces of coal that were not being fed properly into the boiler. When the coal is not properly fed into the boiler, not enough steam is produced to power the plant. As a result, AGP is forced to purchase power from the local utility company. When Mr. Knutson arrived at work on October 6, 1999, AGP was producing only two megawatts of power and purchasing three megawatts because of the problems with the coal feeder. AGP boiler operators maintain a “control operator log” in the control room. In this log, the operators make daily notations about equipment failures, clean-up, and various other problems and concerns. Jim Brown, the energy plant superintendent, reviews this log several times per week. On October 6 and October 7 of 1999, Mr. Knutson and another boiler operator made notations in the log book complaining about the physical toll that the problem with the coal feeders was taking on their bodies because of the extra rod-ding and raking needed to compensate for the poor coal distribution. [Deft’s exh. C, Pf.’s exh. 31]. With respect to Mr. Knutson, he noted that there were large chunks of coal— football sized — stuck in the feeder. Normally, boiler operators rod coal that is much smaller than the coal present on October 6th and 7th. Generally, the coal chunks weigh less than one pound. Consequently, it is easier to break up coal of that size than it was to break up the coal that was stuck in the stokers on October 6th and 7th. Furthermore, Mr. Brown testified that on many days, the stokers do not need to be rodded at all. Thus, on October 6 and 7, 1999, the coal was larger than usual and required greater stoking than would ordinarily be required of a boiler operator. In the log book, Mr. Knutson stated that he asked Ken Mohr, the floating supervisor for the bean plant, for an extra employee to help with the rodding but that Mr. Mohr responded that no one was available to help. Until this request, Mr. Knut-son had never asked for any help rodding the stokers and had been successfully rod-ding them without assistance since he was released from his restrictions after his shoulder surgery. There was no evidence at trial that Mr. Knutson ever asked for assistance rodding the stokers, even though Mr. Askvig or Mr. Lilly sometimes performed the task. The excessive rod-ding on October 6 and October 7, 1999 aggravated Mr. Knutson’s latent shoulder condition and caused him a significant amount of pain. In the log book on October 6, 1999, he directed a comment to Mr. Brown and wrote, “Jim — This is way over the amount of heavy rodding I should be doing.” [Deft.’s exh. C]. The following day he wrote, “If this [the problem with the stokers] keeps up I will not be able to keep this up.... The idea of pain pills is not to take two[,] wait an hour and go do work that requires me to take more pain pills.” [Deft’s exh. C]. He also reiterated his request for help with the excessive rodding and noted that AGP was buying power because of the stoker problem and that surely the cost of purchasing power was greater than the additional cost of adding another employee to help with the rodding. 3. AGP’s response to Mr. Knutson’s comments in the log book After reading Mr. Knutson’s comments in the log book, Mr. Brown angrily approached Mr. Knutson and told him that he was in the process of writing him a letter and that, as soon as it was finished, Mr. Brown would give it to Mr. Knutson. Because of Mr. Brown’s demeanor, Mr. Knutson was obviously concerned about the contents of the letter and, instead of waiting for Mr. Brown to finish it, Mr. Knutson talked to Carl Parker, AGP’s plant manager. Mr. Parker and Mr. Brown had interpreted Mr. Knutson’s log book comments to mean that he was asserting that he was working outside of his restrictions. When Mr. Parker checked Mr. Knutson’s restrictions, he discovered that they had expired. Therefore, he instructed Mr. Knutson to return to the doctor in order to get current restrictions, and Mr. Knutson obliged. Mr. Knutson went to a physician’s assistant and, on October 13, 1999, received a “work status report.” [Pf.’s exh. 17]. That report limited Mr. Knutson to lifting 20 pounds; no bending or stooping at waist; slow ladder and stair climbing; no shoveling; no repetitive use of the left arm and hand; limited overhead reaching to once per hour; and must be allowed to change position from sitting to standing every hour. [Pf.’s exh. 17]. Because Mr. Knutson had not been raking bottom ash, these restrictions did not materially affect the duties he had been performing when the boilers were operating properly. As noted above, ordinarily, boiler operators normally rod the stokers, which involves overhead reaching, only once per 12-hour shift. After receiving the restrictions, AGP informed Mr. Knutson that it did not have a position available to meet his restrictions. Therefore, it assigned him various light duty work in the energy center, as well as in other parts of the plant. However, the physician’s assistant who wrote the restrictions did not provide an end date for them, and Mr. Parker instructed Mr. Knutson to return to a doctor in order to get a definite time frame for his recovery period. Accordingly, Mr. Knutson returned to the doctor, this time consulting a medical doctor. On October 18, 1999, Mr. Knutson obtained a second set of restrictions, which differed significantly from his October 13, 1999 restrictions. [Deft.’s exh. D]. The second set of restrictions provided the following temporary limitations: no lifting greater than 15 pounds from floor to waist level; no lifting greater than 25 pounds from waist to shoulder level; no pushing or pulling greater than 75 pounds of force. This doctor also provided a permanent restriction — no more than occasional work with the left arm outstretched at shoulder level. As for the duration of these restrictions, the doctor indicated that the temporary limitations were to remain in place until Mr. Knutson underwent surgery. While Mr. Knutson testified that he would not have been comfortable pulling bottom ash, nothing in the second set of restrictions precluded any of the duties normally associated with the boiler operator’s position. Still, when he returned to work and provided AGP with the second set of restrictions, AGP continued to assign Mr. Knutson to light duty work. Pertinent to AGP’s perception of Mr. Knut-son’s limitations, Mr. Parker, red-faced and angry, told Mr. Knutson that he was not to operate any equipment at AGP and that he was not even to touch a button in the control room. The work Mr. Knutson performed after providing the second set of restrictions to AGP consisted of makeshift odd jobs around the plant. For example, he held a hose that washed down the floor and drained into a floor drain. This manner of cleaning the plant floor did not require him to mop or sweep; he simply held the hose. He also did a lot of painting around the plant. Mr. Knutson did not mind the work so much as he resented being relegated to menial tasks when he felt capable of performing his boiler operator duties and when his restrictions did not preclude him from the boiler operator position. Further, his physical condition had not changed since before the new restrictions were issued, and, at that time, he was an effective boiler operator. 4. Mr. Knutson’s back surgery, his termination, and the videotape Mr. Knutson’s medical history makes clear that he had physical difficulties and labored under a series of work restrictions. In March of 1999, in an attempt to better acquaint his doctor with the type of work he performed that was causing him the most pain, Mr. Knutson enlisted the help of Mr. Askvig to videotape the task of pulling bottom ash. The videotape, filmed by Mr. Knutson, shows Mr. Askvig raking ash. Mr. Knutson did not obtain permission from anyone at AGP to make the videotape, but neither he nor Mr. Askvig believed that they were violating any company rules. In fact, the tape was made in plain sight of plant floor supervisors. Around this same time, Mr. Knutson was involved in a dispute with AGP concerning whether his back pain was a compensable work-related injury. Mr. Knutson claimed that back surgery was necessitated by a work-related injury that occurred several years prior to 1999. Therefore, he filed a worker’s compensation claim and argued that surgery to repair his condition should be covered by AGP’s worker’s compensation policy. AGP, however, disagreed and denied coverage. Mr. Knutson sought the counsel of a worker’s compensation attorney, and he provided the videotape of Mr. Askvig raking coals to his attorney. Mr. Knut-son’s attorney, in turn and through the course of discovery, provided the tape to AGP’s worker’s compensation attorney. On November 26, 1999, AGP’s counsel in Omaha, Nebraska, sent the tape to Mr. Parker and asked him to identify the individuals responsible for the tape. Mr. Parker immediately recognized Mr. Askvig and confronted him about the tape. Mr. Askvig initially denied knowledge that Mr. Knutson was videotaping him but later recanted and admitted to having knowingly and willingly participated in the videotape’s making. Mr. Askvig told Mr. Parker that Mr. Knutson had asked him to make the tape in order to show Mr. Knut-son’s doctor the task that was aggravating his shoulder and back pain and that Mr. Askvig agreed to demonstrate pulling bottom ash. Mr. Askvig was subsequently disciplined but not for appearing in or participating in the making of the “unauthorized” videotape. Instead, he was disciplined for dishonesty. He received a verbal warning. AGP took no action at this time against Mr. Knutson, nor did it even contact Mr. Knutson to discuss the videotape. As noted, AGP received the videotape on November 26, 1999. At this time, Mr. Knutson continued on light duty. He ultimately decided to undergo back surgery in order to lift himself out from under the work restrictions. He concluded that, if he did not have surgery, he would be “forever paint brush in hand.” Because AGP had denied worker’s compensation coverage of his injury, Mr. Knutson was required to use his own health insurance and disability benefits to pay for the surgery. On December 21, 1999, Mr. Knut-son went on short-term disability and underwent back surgery. On March 8, 2000, Mr. Knutson’s surgeon released him to return to work with a temporary restriction that he refrain from lifting, carrying, or pushing over 35 pounds more than 25 feet. [Pf.’s exh. 19]. These were essentially the same restrictions Mr. Knutson had prior to going on short-term disability. Mr. Knutson’s doctor faxed the release to AGP on March 9, 2000, and Mr. Knutson went to AGP on that day to talk to Mr. Parker about coming back to work. There was no discussion at that time about the videotape or any other potential problems with Mr. Knutson’s return to the plant. Even with the post-surgery restrictions, Mr. Knutson could have performed all the duties of boiler operator that he had performed prior to being assigned to light duty in October of 1999. That is, with the exception of pulling bottom ash and excessive rodding of the stokers, Mr. Knutson’s restrictions did not preclude him from rod-ding the stokers under normal conditions or carrying out the functions of the control room operator. Nevertheless, when Mr. Knutson returned to work on March 13, 2000, Mr. Parker again assigned him light duty work. Specifically, Mr. Knutson reported to the water plant to test samples of purified water, which would later be used in the boilers. He finished out the day without incident and without any indication from Mr. Parker that his job was in jeopardy. The following day, March 14, 2000, Mr. Parker summoned Mr. Knutson to his office. There, Mr. Parker presented Mr. Knutson with a letter of termination. The letter stated: November 26, 1999 AGP received a videotape, displaying actual footage of an AGP Employee dumping the ash from # 1 and # 2 boilers. Also displayed in this tape is footage of an AGP Employee cleaning a stoker. You made this videotape, without the knowledge or approval of AGP Management. The act of video taping any part of the AGP operation, within the boundaries of AGP property, without consent of the AGP Chief Executive Officer, or his designate, is in direct violation of AGP Safety Policy, Section I, Item # 7 — C. The section reads “AGP’s policy does not allow cameras in the plant unless the CEO, or his designate, approves.” Plant Work Rule # 17 states that “Violation of safety regulations and practices” is grounds for disciplinary action up to and including suspension and/or termination. In view of the seriousness of the offense and the breach of security incurred, it is AGP’s position that your employment be terminated immediately. [Deft’s exh. F], 5. The “safety” rule Mr. Knutson allegedly breached The rule AGP invoked to justify Mr. Knutson’s dismissal, Section I, Item # 7— C, is entitled, “OSHA Plant Inspection Procedure.” [Pf.’s exh. 21], OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is an arm of the United Stated Department of Labor whose goal is to ensure safe working environments. The preface to Section I of this rule provides: Federal and state safety laws allow OSHA Compliance Officers the right to enter, at reasonable times, any company location where work is being performed, for the purpose of making a safety inspection. The OSHA Compliance officer will normally ask to see the plant official that is responsible for plant operations. It is essential that various personnel receive instruction as to their responsibilities, including contacting key personnel about the arrival of the OSHA Compliance Officer. [Pf.’s exh. 17]. Item 7 applies only to the OSHA compliance officers and outlines what they are authorized to do in performing inspections. Subpart C of the rule provides that, unless compliance officers obtain permission from AGP’s chief executive officer, they are not permitted to take photographs. [Pf.’s exh. 17], If approval to take photographs is obtained, the rule instructs the AGP representative accompanying the officers on their inspection to take duplicate photographs. [Pf.’s exh. 17]. Moreover, if compliance officers intend to take photographs in hazardous areas of the plant, Item 7 mandates that the camera be “explosion proof.” [Pf.’s exh. 17]. The other subparts of Item 7 authorize OSHA compliance officers to take environmental samples, to use appropriate scientific or investigate techniques to record conditions, and to assess plant conditions by interviewing employees in private. [Pf.’s exh. 17], The work rules that apply to AGP employees are contained in the Employee Handbook. [Deft.’s exh. H]. The handbook does not contain any rule prohibiting the use of cameras or videotape equipment in the plant. And while AGP argued at trial that pictures were a significant breach of security, photographs of AGP’s Eagle Grove plant had appeared in the Eagle Grove newspaper. Moreover, Mr. Parker testified at trial and in his deposition that, if an employee were to request permission to videotape his or her work for medical purposes, AGP corporate headquarters would likely allow the employee to do so. Even so, AGP sought to establish at trial that it terminated Mr. Knutson because he made an unauthorized videotape that violated the company’s safety rules and was a breach of security. Mr. Parker steadfastly asserted that the videotape was AGP’s only consideration in making the termination decision. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 1. Applicable standards The standards for a motion for judgment as a matter of law are outlined in Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part, Rule 50 provides: (a) Judgment as a Matter of Law. (1) If during the trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentia-ry basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue. (2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. (b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial. Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment — and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may: (1) if a verdict was returned: (A) allow the judgment to stand, (B) order a new trial, or (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; or (2) if no verdict was returned; (A) order a new trial, or (B) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law. Fed R. Civ. P. 50(a)-(b). “Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when all of the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining the position-of the nonmoving party.” Manus v. American Airlines, Inc., 314 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Belk v. City of Eldon, 228 F.3d 872, 877-78 (8th Cir.2000) (citation omitted by Manus court), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1008, 121 S.Ct. 1734, 149 L.Ed.2d 659 (2001)). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated the standards to be applied by the district court — as well as the appellate court — in determining a motion for judgment as a matter of law: When the motion seeks judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the question is a legal one. Hathaway v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1214, 1220 (8th Cir.1997); Jarvis v. Sauer Sundstrand Co., 116 F.3d 321, 324 (8th Cir.1997). A jury verdict must be affirmed “ ‘unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have not found for that party.’ ” Stockmen’s Livestock Mkt., Inc. [v. Norwest Bank of Sioux City], 135 F.3d 1236, 1240-41 (8th Cir.1998) (quoting Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 53 F.3d 899, 904 (8th Cir.1996)). Cross v. Cleaver, 142 F.3d 1059, 1066 (8th Cir.1998); accord Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (stating that under Rule 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentia-ry basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”) (citations omitted). Thus, this standard requires the court to: “[Consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, assume that the jury resolved all conflicts of evidence in favor of that party, assume as true all facts which the prevailing party’s evidence tended to prove, give the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts, and deny the motion, if in light of the foregoing, reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence.” Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Lake Calhoun Assocs., 928 F.2d 299, 301 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting Atlas Pile Driving Co. v. DiCon Fin. Co., 886 F.2d 986, 989 (8th Cir.1989)); see also Stephens v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 198, 200 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 956 (8th Cir.1994), in turn, quoting Hastings v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 975 F.2d 506, 509 (8th Cir.1992)); Haynes v. Bee-Line Trucking Co., 80 F.3d 1235, 1238 (8th Cir.1996); Nelson v. Boatmen’s Bancshares, Inc., 26 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir.1994) (reiterating these factors, citing White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 779 (8th Cir.1992); McAnally v. Gildersleeve, 16 F.3d 1493, 1500 (8th Cir.1994) (same)). In short, a court entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law must review all of the evidence in the record but, in doing so, “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (citing Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-55, 110 S.Ct. 1331, 108 L.Ed.2d 504 (1990); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 696 n. 6, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962)). This standard for consideration of a motion for judgment as a matter of law accords the jury’s verdict substantial deference. Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dep’t, 28 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir.1994); McAnally, 16 F.3d at 1500. However, even with this deference to the jury’s verdict, the jury cannot be accorded “the benefit of unreasonable inferences, or those ‘at war with the undisputed facts,’ ” McAnally, 16 F.3d at 1500 (quoting City of Omaha Employees Betterment Ass’n v. City of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir.1989), in turn, quoting Marcoux v. Van Wyk, 572 F.2d 651, 653 (8th Cir.1978)). “‘While [the court] [is] compelled to accord the utmost respect to jury verdicts and tread gingerly in reviewing them, [the court] [is] not a rubber stamp convened merely to endorse the conclusions of the jury, but rather [has] a duty to reverse the jury verdict if the evidence cannot support it.’ ” Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 308 F.3d 351, 355 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting Price v. City of Charlotte, N.C., 93 F.3d 1241, 1250 (4th Cir.1996) (internal citations omitted)), rehearing en banc granted, opinion vacated on other grounds (Dec. 16, 2002). Nevertheless, the court must still defer to the jury’s resolution of conflicting testimony. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Having reviewed the applicable standards, the court turns to an examination of the arguments raised in AGP’s motion for judgment as a matter of law to determine whether post-trial relief from the jury’s verdict against AGP is appropriate. 2. Sufficiency of the evidence — disability discrimination The ADA provides that “[sjubject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. AGP contends that Mr. Knutson failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and the ICRA’s parallel anti-discrimination provision. Specifically, AGP argues that Mr. Knutson was not perceived as disabled; that Mr. Knutson failed to prove that he was regarded as disabled in the major life activity of working; that Mr. Knutson could not perform the essential functions of the job; and that AGP was not improperly motivated when it made the decision to terminate Mr. Knutson’s employment. a. Perceived disability claim: Essential elements The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals who are disabled because of a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To prove a claim under the ADA, Mr. Knutson must show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that he is qualified, with or without accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job, and (3) that AGP discharged him because of his disability. E.g., Fenney v. Dakota, Minnesota & E.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir.2003) (outlining prima facie case of disability discrimination) (citing Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 293 F.3d 481, 490 (8th Cir.2002)); Dropinski v. Douglas County, Neb., 298 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir.2002) (same) (citing Greer v. Emerson Elec. Co., 185 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir.1999); Cooper v. Olin Corp., Winchester Div., 246 F.3d 1083, 1087 (8th Cir.2001) (same)) (citing Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc)); Heas er v. Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir.2001) (same); Maziarka v. Mills Fleet Farm, Inc., 245 F.3d 675, 678 (8th Cir.2001) (same); Taylor v. Nimock’s Oil Co., 214 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Treanor v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 200 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 214 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1043, 1047 (8th Cir.1999) (same). AGP claims that Mr. Knutson failed to establish each of these elements. b. Element 1: Disability The ADA defines “disability” in three discrete ways: “(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). Mr. Knutson proceeded to trial under the theory that he falls under the protective umbrella of the ADA by virtue of being “regarded as” or “perceived” as disabled by AGP within the meaning of subpart C of the Act. That is to say that “[a] person may be disabled under the ADA if, notwithstanding the absence of an actual disability, he is perceived or ‘regarded as’ having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir.1999) (citing Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999)). By including individuals who are regarded as disabled within the ambit of the ADA, Congress intended to combat the effects of stereotypes that “work to the disadvantage of persons with or regarded as having disabilities.” Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir.1995). As this court explained in Simonson v. Trinity Regional Health System, 221 F.Supp.2d 982 (N.D.Iowa 2002), aff'd, 336 F.3d 706 (8th Cir.2003), in “regarded as” actions, it is not a question of whether the defendants treated the plaintiff adversely “because of his or her feelings about the plaintiffs physical or mental impairment,” Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 915 (8th Cir.1999), but a question of whether the defendants’ treatment of the plaintiff was a result of the defendants’ harboring “ ‘archaic attitudes,’ erroneous perceptions, and myths that work to the disadvantage of persons with or regarded as having disabilities.” Brunko v. Mercy Hosp., 260 F.3d 939, 942 (8th Cir.2001). Simonson, 221 F.Supp.2d at 990. To survive this motion for judgment as a matter of law, Mr. Knutson would have to have produced sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that AGP either (1) mistakenly believed that Mr. Knutson had a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities, or (2) mistakenly believed that an actual, though nonlimit-ing, impairment substantially limited one or more of his major life activities. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999); accord Brunko v. Mercy Hosp., 260 F.3d 939, 942 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Sutton, 527 U.S. at 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139). Here, AGP claims that it did not mistakenly perceive Mr. Knutson as having physical impairments that substantially limited him in the major , life activity of working. Instead, it argues that all of its perceptions of his impairments were exactly as described by Mr. Knutson’s physicians. Thus, the thrust of AGP’s argument in this motion is that it did not misperceive Mr. Knutson’s working restrictions and that it did not mistakenly believe he was actually disabled when the impairments were not so limiting. [AGP Br., at 6; Doc. No. 65]. Mr. Knutson presented his case to the jury under the Sutton Court’s second al-tentative of proving a “regarded as” claim: “covered entity mistakenly believes that an actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities.” See Sutton, 527 U.S. at 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139. That is, he alleged that AGP mistakenly believed that he had a substantially limiting impairment, when in fact he did not. In this case, there is no question that Mr. Knutson labored under a series of work restrictions related to various physical ailments, including a permanent restriction concerning his left arm. By way of review of Mr. Knutson’s work restrictions and communication with Mr. Knut-son, AGP was aware of these impairments. AGP claims that it did not misperceive any of his impairments but instead relied on Mr. Knutson’s physicians’ written restrictions. The evidence, however, belies this assertion and, in fact, strongly supports the jury’s conclusion that AGP viewed Mr. Knutson as having suffered from an impairment that had a considerable and substantial impact that rendered him unable to perform a broad category of factory jobs by perceiving him to be incapable of performing all but the lightest duty of work. As this court held in its ruling on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Mr. Knutson’s lifting restrictions did not rise to the level of an “actual disability.” For the most part, his restrictions on lifting were temporary and otherwise did not substantially limit him in any major life activity. However, Mr. Knutson’s restriction that no work be performed with his left arm was permanent. While AGP claims that its perceptions of Mr. Knut-son’s limitations were based entirely on his written doctors’ restrictions and that it did not perceive him to be unable to perform any jobs other than the boiler operator position, the jury heard evidence that AGP perceived that Mr. Knutson could not perform anything more than “makeshift” jobs. That is to say that the plaintiff produced evidence that, if believed, would have allowed a reasonable jury to conclude that AGP regarded Mr. Knutson’s impairments as substantially limiting him in the major life activity of working. AGP somewhat ingeniously argues that, because this court found on its motion for summary judgment that Mr. Knutson failed to establish that his lifting restrictions rose to the level of an actual disability that it did not regard him as disabled because “[bjeing regarded as having a limiting but not disabling restriction [ ] cannot be a disability within the meaning of the ADA.” Conant v. City of Hibbing, 271 F.3d 782, 785 (8th Cir.2001). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently applied this holding in Simonson v. Trinity Regional Health System, 336 F.3d 706 (8th Cir.2003). In Simonson, the plaintiff did not labor under any work restrictions, temporary or permanent, at the time she was discharged. Id. at 708-09. She had suffered a number of work-related accidents throughout her tenure with the defendant, but each of her resulting restrictions were temporary and had expired by the time she was terminated. Id. In affirming this court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, the Simonson court held that “Trinity’s awareness of Simonson’s past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled.” Id. at 709. In Simonson, the only evidence that the employer-hospital perceived the plaintiff as disabled, other than its knowledge of her medical history, was a stray comment from a supervising employee, which did not demonstrate an “archaic attitude” but rather merely recognized that the plaintiffs physical condition made her less than ideally suited for other jobs at the hospital. Id. (citing Sutton, 527 U.S. at 490-91, 119 S.Ct. 2139). Mr. Knutson’s case is easily distinguishable from Simonson. He labored under restrictions at the time of his termination, both temporary and permanent, and a rational juror could have concluded from the evidence that AGP did not regard him as simply having a limiting but not disabling impairment, based upon his doctor’s written work restrictions. Instead, the jury could reasonably have concluded that AGP disregarded those non-disabling physical restrictions and imposed its own perception of Mr. Knutson’s impairments on its formulation of their effect on his ability to work. In short, Mr. Knutson did not have a substantially limiting impairment, but the evidence, including Mr. Brown’s comment, Mr. Brown’s angry demeanor when dealing with Mr. Knutson’s restrictions, and the jobs to which AGP assigned him in the face of his doctors’ restrictions, showed that AGP perceived him to have a substantially limiting impairment. Moreover, in Simonson, the stray comment relied upon by the plaintiff to show that her employer perceived her as substantially limited in the major life activity of working was narrowly tailored to specific jobs within the hospital. Id. In Mr. Knutson’s case, Mr. Brown made a much broader comment concerning Mr. Knut-son’s physical limitations, which will be discussed in greater detail below. It suffices to say at this point, however, that the comment did not evince a careful consideration of whether or not Mr. Knutson’s physical condition made him suitable for any particular jobs at AGP. While the Supreme Court has not been called upon to rule on the question of whether or not working is a major life activity within the meaning of the ADA, the ADA’s regulations and Eighth Circuit case-law strongly support the conclusion that working is a major life activity. See Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 200, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002) (“Because of the conceptual difficulties inherent in the argument that working could be a major life activity, we have been hesitant to hold as much, and we need not decide this difficult question today.”); accord Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720, 726 n. 7 (8th Cir.2002) (Lay, J., dissenting) (“It is much too late in the day in this circuit to hold that working may not be one of the major life activities under the ADA.”) (citing Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 954-55 (8th Cir.1999); Helfter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 115 F.3d 613, 617 (8th Cir.1997)); Kellogg v. Union Pac. R.R., 233 F.3d 1083, 1087 (8th Cir.2000) (assuming, without deciding, that working is a major life activity under the ADA) (citing Sutton, 527 U.S. at 492, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (same)); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (Major life activities include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.”). AGP" assumes that working qualifies as a major life activity, and this court, like so many others, concludes that it does. Here, to sustain the jury’s verdict, the plaintiff must have presented sufficient evidence proving that AGP mistakenly perceived him to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working. In order to make this determination, the court must briefly explore what it means to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working. i. Substantially limited in major life activity of working, generally. The ADA’s “substantially limits” requirement indicates that an impairment must interfere with a major life activity “ ‘considerably]’ or ‘to a large degree.’ ” Toyo ta, 534 U.S. at 200, 122 S.Ct. 681. The Supreme Court has commented: When referring to the major life activity of working, the EEOC defines “substantially limits” as: “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and ability.” Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516, 523, 119 S.Ct. 2133, 144 L.Ed.2d 484 (1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1998)); accord Fjellestad, 188 F.3d at 949 (“A person is substantially limited in working if she [or he] is ‘significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.’ ”) (quoting Doane v. City of Omaha, 115 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.1997)). The regulations direct district courts to consider factors, such as the number and type of jobs from which the impaired individual is disqualified; the geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access; and the individual’s job training, experience, and expectations, in order to determine whether a person is substantially limited in the major life activity of working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii); accord Fjellestad, 188 F.3d at 949 (listing above factors); Helfter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 115 F.3d 613, 617 (8th Cir.1997) (same). Like other major life activities, the determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in working must be made on a case-by-case basis. Fjellestad, 188 F.3d at 949 (personalized inquiry); Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 94 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir.1996) (same). In Webb v. Garelick Manufacturing Co., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “[a] court must ask Vhether the particular impairment constitutes for th® particular person a significant barrier to employment.’ ” Webb, 94 F.3d at 488. Pertinent to defining the class of jobs used to determine disability are the person’s expertise, background, and job expectations. Id. “Finding that an individual is substantially limited in his or her ability to work requires a showing that his or her overall employment opportunities are limited.” Fjellestad, 188 F.3d at 949 (citing Miller v. City of Springfield, 146 F.3d 612, 614 (8th Cir.1998)); accord E.E.O.C. v. Woodbridge Corp., 263 F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir.2001) (“In order to find that an individual is substantially limited in working, there must be a showing that his or her overall employment opportunities are limited.”) (citing Fjellestad, 188 F.3d at 949); Miller v. City of Springfield, 146 F.3d 612, 614 (8th Cir.1998) (same). The Supreme Court recently addressed a disability claimant’s burden under the ADA: It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under this test [of actual disability] to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, the ADA requires those “claiming the Act’s protection ... to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by their impairment] in terms of their own experience ... is substantial.” Toyota Motor, 122 S.Ct. at 691-92 (quoting Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 567, 119 S.Ct. 2162, 144 L.Ed.2d 518 (1999)) (alterations provided by Toyota Motor Court). In Toyota Motor, the Court emphasized the need to perform an individualized assessment of a person’s physical impairment to determine whether that impairment substantially limits the major life activities of that particular person. See id., 122 S.Ct. at 692. The Court reasoned that medical diagnoses alone are insufficient to qualify a person as disabled within the meaning of subsection A (actual disability) of the ADA because symptoms vary in degree and extent from person to person. Id. In Toyota Motor, the respondent suffered from carpal tunnel. Id. The Court noted the following: An individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one whose symptoms vary widely from person to person. Carpal tunnel syndrome, one of respondent’s impairments, is just such a condition. While cases of severe carpal tunnel syndrome are characterized by muscle atrophy and extreme sensory deficits, mild cases generally do not have either of these effects and create only intermittent symptoms of numbness and tingling. Studies have further shown that, even without surgical treatment, one quarter of carpal tunnel cases resolve in one month, but that in 22 percent of cases, symptoms last for eight years or longer. When pregnancy is the cause of carpal tunnel syndrome, in contrast, the symptoms normally resolve within two weeks of delivery. Given these large potential differences in the severity and duration of the effects of carpal tunnel syndrome, an individual’s carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis, on its own, does not indicate whether the individual has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Id. Of course, Mr. Knutson did not argue at trial that he indeed was substantially limited in the major life activity of working, but these standards are relevant because he must prove that AGP regarded him to be “substantially limited” within the meaning of the ADA. ii. Did Mr. Knutson produce sufficient evidence that AGP regarded him as disabled? On this motion for judgment as a matter of law, AGP repeatedly argues that it merely perceived Mr. Knutson’s impairments as precluding his ability to be a boiler operator (based on his physicians’ restrictions) and that there is no evidence to support Mr. Knutson’s contention that AGP perceived Mr. Knutson as having substantially limiting impairments. In support of this argument, AGP points to the fact that, until October 7, 1999, AGP employed Mr. Knutson as a boiler operator and only reassigned him after he complained that rodding the stokers was causing him pain. However, at trial, Mr. Brown, who was Mr. Knutson’s direct supervisor, testified that he perceived that Mr. Knutson’s physical condition was worsening. AGP’s response to Mr. Knutson’s log book comment is evidence of that perception. In the log book, Mr. Knutson did not complain that he was working outside his restrictions, as AGP contends, but that the excessive rod-ding was painful. Seeing this, AGP immediately required Mr. Knutson to visit a physician to get restrictions. The jury also heard evidence that another boiler operator complained of physical pain from the excessive rodding on October 7, 1999. Still, AGP did not send this employee to a doctor, nor did it even discuss the log book comment with that operator. Moreover, none of Mr. Knutson’s restrictions precluded him from performing the duties associated with the boiler operator position. Mr. Knutson personally stated he preferred not to pull bottom ash because it caused him pain, but the restrictions were not so limiting. Despite the fact Mr. Knutson’s physical condition had not changed since before the time he made the log book notations, and despite the fact he could still perform his duties even with the October 18, 1999 restrictions, AGP assigned Mr. Knutson to light duty work. This work involved almost no physical activity and certainly less physical labor than Mr. Knutson had been performing as a boiler operator. Mr. Brown verbalized AGP’s mistaken belief that Mr. Knutson’s impairments substantially limited him in his ability to work. Specifically, he told Mr. Knutson that he was not to operate any equipment at AGP, nor even to touch a button. The perception that this statement embodies is further seen in the type of work Mr. Knutson was assigned even though he was capable of performing the boiler operator duties — holding a hose and painting pipes. “A person is regarded as having ... [a substantially limiting] impairment if others treat [him] as if [he] is disabled.” Cody v. CIGNA Healthcare of St. Louis, Inc., 139 F.3d 595, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Webb v. Mercy Hosp., 102 F.3d 958, 960 (8th Cir.1996); Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc., 85 F.3d 1311, 1319 (8th Cir.1996)) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2©). Further, contrary to AGP’s assertion, this is not a case like Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 122 S.Ct. 2045, 153 L.Ed.2d 82 (2002), where the Supreme Court held that the EEOC regulation authorizing an employer’s refusal to hire an individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health owing to a disability did not exceed the scope of permissible rule-making under the ADA. Id. at 76, 122 S.Ct. 2045. In that case, the employer rescinded a job offer because the pre-employment physical examination revealed that the petitioner suffered from hepatitis C and that exposure to chemicals in the employer’s plant would aggravate his condition. Id. at 76-77, 122 S.Ct. 2045. The Court held that the employer was entitled to reasonably rely on the doctors’ advice regarding the petitioner’s well-being in rescinding its offer of employment. Id. at 77, 122 S.Ct. 2045. The main distinction between Echazabal and Mr. Knutson’s case is that the evidence in Mr. Knutson’s case, if believed, showed that AGP did not rely on Mr. Knutson’s medical restrictions in its perception of the type of work he could safely perform. Instead, it disregarded Mr. Knutson’s medical restrictions, which would have allowed him to continue as boiler operator. The court instructed the jury that “an employer does not perceive an employee to be disabled if the employer’s conclusion that the employee is unable to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes is a reasonable one based upon an individualized inquiry that takes into account medical or other evidence concerning the employee’s actual ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” [Final Jury Instruction No. 3, at 20]. The jury evidently concluded that AGP did not make an individualized assessment of Mr. Knutson’s ability to work. Instead, relying on stereotypes and Mr. Brown’s unsubstantiated belief that Mr. Knutson’s condition was deteriorating, AGP assigned Mr. Knutson to makeshift work around the plant and told him that he could not operate any equipment at AGP, even if it was as simple as pushing a button. By assigning Mr. Knutson to work well below the threshold physical requirements that his work restrictions permitted him to do and by taking him out of the boiler position, which was within his restrictions, AGP’s actions demonstrate that it perceived Mr. Knutson’s impairments to be substantially limiting. AGP rightly points out that reliance on physicians’ assessments and restriction is not evidence that an employer has a mistaken belief or perception concerning an employee’s condition. See Alexander v. Northland Inn, 321 F.3d 723, 727 (8th Cir.2003) (“Northland was entitled to rely and act upon the written advice from [the plaintiffs] physician that unam