Agro, 555 F.3d at 470 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630, App., § 1630.9). The denial of such a reasonable accommodation is, in and of itself, proscribed activity: It is unlawful for a covered entity not to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or em ployee with a disability, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has recognized the importance of focusing upon an employer’s failure to accommodate a disability, rather than whether an employee suffered an “adverse employment action.” See, e.g., Bridges v. Dept. of Social Servs., No. 00-30804, 2001 WL 502797, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Relying upon the court’s reasoning in
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 plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action holding that regarded as claim is reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability alleged in eeoc charge holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability 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