Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in interpreting the Ohio statute. City of Columbus Civil Serv. Comm’n v. McGlone, 82 Ohio St.3d 569, 697 N.E.2d 204, 206-07 (Ohio 1998) (‘We can look to regulations and cases interpreting the federal is under either misperception. First, there is no evidence that Continental believed that Gayer had a substantially limiting impairment that she in fact did not have. Continental did believe that Gayer could not lift over 40 pounds, but Gayer does not dispute this fact. The inability to lift over 40 pounds, however, is not, in and of itself, a disability. Indeed, “[f]ederal case law supports that a maximum weight restriction is not a disability as defined by the ADA.” Law v. City of Scottsdale, No. 98-6335, 2000 WL 799742, at *4 (6th Cir. June 15, 2000) (unpublished table decision) ; see also McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg. U.S.A.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff who was under a 40pound lifting restriction was not disabled as defined by the ada and listing five cases from various circuits including our own in which courts have held that weight restrictions alone do not render a plaintiff disabled
B. holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled
C. holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
D. holding that plaintiffs hernia condition was not sufficient to render her disabled under the ada
E. holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.