one under Title VII, requires a showing that: (1) the employee is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA; (2) he or she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on his or her disability; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his or her employment and to create an abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993); McConathy v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Corp., 131 F.3d 558, 563 (5th Cir.1998). To prove an “abusive work environment,” the plaintif ok County, No. 96 C 1113, 1997 WL 370199 at *9 (N.D.Ill. June 27, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Kwiatek maintains that he was
holding that the employers willingness to accommodate the employee undercut the employees claim of constructive discharge holding that although the plaintiff has suffered no adverse employment action she may still raise a claim of discrimination based on the alleged failure reasonably to accommodate her disability holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection holding employers initial refusal to accommodate employees medical restrictions insufficient to establish adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action