refer to 1993 as the year plaintiff left Avante. This is incorrect. She left in 1994. This minor typographical error, however, does not alter the effect of the admission, which clearly requested an admission regarding what plaintiff did “after ... [leaving] Avante at Lynchburg" (emphasis added). 4 . There is no dispute in the record that Camelot and Riverside are subject to the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act. 5 . I also have doubts, based on the admissions, that plaintiff ever completed the necessary steps to be considered for admission. However, construing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, I conclude that she did take the necessary steps. 6 . Also persuasive authority is Nichols v. St. Luke Center of Hyde Park, 800 F.Supp. 1564, 1570 (S.D.Ohio 1992) (<HOLDING>). "If an individual's handicap cannot be
holding rehabilitation act applicable holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation holding that sanction of removal for nursing home attendant who was found to have hit patient suffering from dementia should be reduced to penalty of sixmonth suspension because act of hitting patient was isolated instance in which patient was aggressor holding that no rehabilitation act violation occurred when nursing home discharged patient with behavioral problems because no reasonable accommodation existed holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act