in Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code. This argument, however, falls far short of the mark. First, the term “claim” is broadly defined by the Bankruptcy Code. See Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274, 279, 105 S.Ct. 705, 83 L.Ed.2d 649 (1985) (confirming that Congress desired a broad definition of claim). Secondly, under any fair reading, Plaintiffs allegations of discrimination squarely fit within the statutory definition. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and equitable relief in the form of reinstatement stemming from her alleged wrongful termination. See O’Loghlin v. County of Orange, 229 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir.2000) (agreeing with district court that a plaintiffs ADA claim was discharged in bankruptcy); see also McSherry v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 81 F.3d 739, 740 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Kresmery v. Service Am. Corp., 227 B.R. 10,
holding that ada claim is independent of cba and thus minor dispute holding ada claim was discharged holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable holding that ada claim under title iii did not survive plaintiffs death holding consortium claim unavailable under title vii and ada