to Accommodate “It is settled that an employee cannot hold an employer liable for failing to provide an accommodation that the employee has not requested in the first place.” Falchenberg v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 375 F.Supp.2d 344, 348 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citation omitted). Here, Brown never accomplished this essential element, because he failed to put Boards on notice that he desired an accommodation prior to his termination. To the extent that Dr. Braun’s letter of January 29, 2004 to Boards noting that Brown would be unable to work until February 9 constituted an accommodation request, Boards granted the request. Any notice on or after Brown’s termination on February 10, 2004 is ineffective. See Scott v. Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 190 F.Supp.2d 590, 596 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, at the time of his discharge and
holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding that the ada only applies to employees and that requests for accommodations must be made prior to termination holding that a clause limiting arbitration to employment termination extends to a defamatory comment made after such termination about employees service holding title vii analysis applies in ada case holding that denials of hearingimpaired employees multiple requests for accommodations under the rehabilitation act were each discrete acts of discrimination under morgan