"Plaintiff has produced evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke and its residue causes him to suffer severe asthma attacks necessitating the use of medication and sometimes hospitalization. Union Pacific argues that plaintiff's asthma does not substantially limit his breathing because it can be controlled through mitigating measures, namely by using inhalers and taking hot showers. Although the court must consider any factors that may mitigate plaintiff's impairment, the presence of mitigating measures does not mean that an individual is not protected by the ADA. Sutton, 527 U.S. at 488, 119 S.Ct. 2139. Rather, an individual may still be substantially limited in a major life activity, notwithstanding the use of a corrective device like medicine, which may only lessen the symptoms of an impairment. Id. In other words, "the use or nonuse of a corrective device does not determine whether an individual is disabled; that determination depends on whether the limitations an individual with an impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting." Id. Here, plaintiff cannot "cure" his asthma or prevent an asthmatic attack by using an inhaler or by taking hot showers. Plaintiff can only use these mitigating measures after an attack has already begun to help cope with his condition, and even then his asthma cannot always be controlled. While these measures may lessen the duration of plaintiff's attacks, they do not lessen the limitations he faces when exposed to tobacco smoke or its residue. Union Pacific's contention that plaintiff's asthma is not sufficiently severe also lacks merit. Plaintiff need not suffer an attack every time he is exposed to smoke or smoke residue in order to be "disabled" under the ADA. Plaintiff has produced evidence that he suffers symptoms such as chest tightness, coughing, and shortness of breath when exposed to smoke and smoke residue and that he suffered six severe attacks between June 1994 and May 1997. Moreover, plaintiff's treating physician considers his attacks life threatening. This evidence, at a minimum, creates a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's condition is sufficiently severe. Finally, Union Pacific's assertion that plaintiff's condition is "temporary" is also without merit. Plaintiff need not be in a constant state of distress or suffer an asthmatic attack to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Based on the above, the court easily finds that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether plaintiff's asthma substantially limited his major life activity of breathing."