In Cassista v. Community Foods (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 1050, the Court examined the historical development of disability law in California, recognizing that FEHA's 1992 definition of disability was based on the ADA's definition. (5 Cal. 4th at p. 1056, fn. 6.) In an attempt to harmonize a 1992 FEHA amendment with the statute's older implementing regulations and to maintain continuity in the law, the Court concluded the definition of disability in FEHA was "substantially similar" to the definition of a "handicapped individual" contained in a 1988 regulation--one who "has a physical handicap which substantially limits one or more major life activities." ( Cassista, supra, 5 Cal. 4th at p. 1060.) Cassista does contain language which implies that a substantial limitation is required under FEHA: "the result is that our statute section 12926 has finally caught up with its implementing regulation; the new definition of 'disability' in section 12926, subdivision (k), and the long-standing interpretation of 'handicap' in the California Code of Regulations ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, 7293.6) are in harmony. Each requires an actual or perceived physiological disorder . . . affecting one or more of the body's major systems and substantially limiting one or more major life activities." ( Id. at p. 1060.)