in order to repair the hand truck”). By Marks’s own repeated assertions, in other words, approval of a service technician to come out would have fully satisfied his claim for an accommodation. His problem is that unrefuted evidence in the record shows that Defendant did approve this request in early April, as explained more fully below. As a result, all that remains of either part of Marks’s claim is a theory that the Company’s delay in granting his requests denied him a reasonable accommodation. To be sure, an employer’s “unreasonable” delay may constitute the denial of an accommodation in some circumstances. Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 651 F.3d 190, 200 (1st Cir. 2011); Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>); see also Mogenhan v. Napolitano, 613 F.3d
holding that denial of request for accommodation of religion is a discrete act under morgan holding condominium associations delay of more than a year in deciding on request for designated handicapped parking spaces constituted a denial of accommodation request holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation holding failure to immediately approve request for accommodation even for employee with known disability did not constitute denial of reasonable accommodation where employer was working on solution over several months holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion