view of the concept of discrimination advanced in the ADA.” Id. Alexander and Olmstead therefore support this Court’s conclusion that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit, as a type of disability discrimination, the failure to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled person. Decisions from federal appeals courts other than the Eighth Circuit also support this conclusion. For instance, the Seventh Circuit held, after carefully analyzing the question, that “it is possible to demonstrate discrimination on the basis of disability by a defendant’s refusal to make a reasonable accommodation.” Washington v. Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 181 F.3d 840, 848 (7th Cir.1999); see also McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453, 460 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th
holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government holding that one way for the plaintiff to establish discrimination under title ii of the ada and the rehabilitation act would be to show that the defendant could have reasonably accommodated his disability but refused to do so