so in light of the DMAS approval of Medicaid reimbursement, a fact that indicates the degree of care plaintiff required. Indeed, plaintiffs position with respect to REMH is undercut given that it initially denied her admission to its facility and then admitted her, pursuant to an agreement that terminated threatened litigation and resolved pending administrative complaints. In any event, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not apply to either of MFA’s facilities after discharge from Avante. This is consistent with the plaintiffs view of REMH as her first choice in a nursing facility. Consequently, plaintiffs failure to apply to the facilities after discharge from Avante precludes any finding of discrimination. Cf. Robinson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 823 F.2d 793, 796 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 773,
holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case holding title vii analysis applies in ada case holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that title vii does not prescribe an employers determination of preferred or required job requirements