and his supervisor never returned his calls, and never advised him that his extended absence would require him to apply for a leave of absence. According to Plaintiff, a simple investigation into these facts would have revealed a failure to accommodate or grant a leave of absence on the part of Federal Mogul. It is generally accepted that a failure to accommodate is not like or reasonably related to an allegation of termination. Stuart, 217 F.3d at 630 (stating an allegation of discipline is not like or related to an allegation of termination); see Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir.1997) (finding a complaint of failure to accommodate and termination are separate things not like or reasonably related); Jones v. Sumser Ret. Vill., 209 F.3d 851, 853-54 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Here, construing the complaint’s allegation
holding that default termination is government claim 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 the employers willingness to accommodate the employee undercut the employees claim of constructive discharge holding a termination claim is far different from a failure to accommodate claim holding that a failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada and pointing out that a failure to accommodate claim and a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada are not like or reasonably related to one another and one cannot expect a failure to accommodate claim to develop from an investigation into a claim that an employee was terminated because of a disability