context: Neither has McDonough produced evidence to support her contention that she was substantially limited in her ability to stand. It is undisputed that she could stand for one hour a day and intermittently for four hours a day. She was also able to perform all of the following activities, each of which involves standing: vacuuming, doing laundry, putting dishes in the dishwasher, mowing, baking, and gardening. Consequently, we cannot agree with McDonough's claim that she was substantially limited in her ability to stand and therefore, disabled.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 242 F.3d 610, 614
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that plaintiffs inability to stand for more than one hour did not render her disabled
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Neal, 379 Fed.Appx. at 634 (holding that plaintiffs inability to stand more than two hours was insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that she was disabled); see also Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. of Lafayette Inc., 242 F.3d 610, 614 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that plaintiffs inability to stand for more than one hour did not render her disabled).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 379 Fed.Appx. 634, 634
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that plaintiffs inability to stand more than two hours was insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that she was disabled
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Neal, 379 Fed.Appx. at 634 (holding that plaintiffs inability to stand more than two hours was insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that she was disabled); see also Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. of Lafayette Inc., 242 F.3d 610, 614 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that plaintiffs inability to stand for more than one hour did not render her disabled).