Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on the erroneous legal premise that the Plaintiff is not part of the protected class of citizens

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . of, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits private . ° employers, State and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 | or more employees, including State and local governments. It also applies to : employment agencies and to labor organizations. The definition of a disability: SEC. . 12102. [Section 3] As used in this chapter: ; , . (1) Disability. The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more ; major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph _ Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on the erroneous , legal premise that the Plaintiff is not part of the protected class of citizens? How is being wrongfully terminated for the Plaintiff's disability not a oe violation of Title I of the ADA in comparison to similar cases? : Assuming the Court somehow erred in its judgment just a few months prior a to trial, did the court deny Plaintiff due process by terminating her case that calls ~ ; for a trial under Rule 38? ; ; . 1