969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 940, 113 S.Ct. 1336, 122 L.Ed.2d 720 (1993). He cannot withstand summary judgment simply by relying on allegations in his opposition that are unsupported by the evidence in the record. See Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013, 113 S.Ct. 635, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992). 11 . 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 12 . See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Williams v. Widnall, 79 F.3d 1003, 1005 & n. 3 (10th Cir.1996) (explaining application of the analysis in cases under the ADA). 13 . Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir.1997). 14 . See Eckholt v. American Business Information, Inc., 873 F.Supp. 526, 534 (D.Kan.1994) (<HOLDING>). 15 . 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). 16 . See Pretrial
holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that plaintiff conceded the merits of an issue when he did not respond in any way to defendants argument on that issue in his opposition before the district court holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed