way that Jones’s recent medical treatments or pain therapy were connected to BPP. It does assert that “[t]he seriousness of my medical condition coupled with the aggressive treatment which followed, left me intensely ill, physically, as well as it [sic] drastically hindered my academic ability as I was unable to successfully concentrate on the material during the previous exams.” At the same time, the e-mail says that despite his medical challenges, Jones had performed his job well during the last two years. Jones did not refer to or attach any medical records or certifications in support of his statements. NLI executives were not on notice that the symptoms Jones described in his email were caused by a disability. See Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254, 260-62 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The employer was aware that during 2006-2008
holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that because plaintiff received her disability benefits via her employment and had no nexus to defendants insurance office  she was not discriminated against in connection with a public accommodation and therefore could not state a claim under title iii holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that defendant adequately indicated to officers that she sought assistance of counsel when she stated that she wanted to call her lawyer and officer testified that request was unambiguous holding that plaintiff did not adequately request accommodation when she failed to inform superiors that her anger management problems were due to bipolar disorder because she never adequately put the employer on notice of her disability id at 260 and gave no notice of the aspect of her illness relevant to the accommodation she sought id at 262