is not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA disposes of said cause of action. 18 . Having already decided that the Defendant's denial of Plaintiff’s request of January 24, 2002 is time-barred, we will only discuss the second denial for change in territory that took place on December of 2003. 19 . See also Plautz v. Potter, 156 Fed.Appx. 812 (6th Cir.2005) (criticisms of plaintiff's performance or attendance did not constitute ''harassment'' sufficient to create hostile work: environment, under the Rehabilitation Act, absent evidence that employee was ridi culed or insulted because of his medical condition to the point that it permeated the workplace environment); Angelone v. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, No. CIV. S-05-21G6 FCD JFM, 2007 WL 1033458 (E.D.Cal. April 3, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Lucenti v. Potter, 432 F.Supp.2d 347
holding that the plaintiffs challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment holding that plaintiff established a prima facie claim of retaliation because the defendants failure to transfer her out of her abusive working environment could be viewed as an adverse personnel action and there was a causal link between the filing of plaintiffs complaint and the defendants failure to transfer her holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that no reasonable person would find plaintiffs complaints of defendants criticism of her job performance to be objectively abusive holding no reasonable jurist could find a defense counsels affirmative misadvice as to the immigration consequences of a guilty plea to be objectively reasonable citations omitted