Other VEs have testified that they do not. See, e.g., Carl D. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:17-cv-01114 (TWD), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38063, at *34 n.6, 2019 WL 1115704, at *12 n.6 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2019) (upholding finding that claimant restricted from fast-paced work could be a ticket taker); Williams v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-312-FtM-38MRM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123661, at *24, 2016 WL 4751708, at *8-10 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2016) (same); Wade v. Berryhill, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1362-BH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154492, at *32, 2017 WL 4176940, at *10-11 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2017) (upholding finding that claimant restricted from fast-paced work could be a routing clerk). The VE is this case testified that the jobs of car wash attendant, advertising material distributor, and routing clerk could all be performed by someone limited to a "low stress work environment."