Case Name: Daniel C. SYKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-06
Citations: 128 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 04-13776; D.C. Docket No. 02-00336-CV-T-24-TGW
Parties: Daniel C. SYKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Daniel C. SYKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-13776.
D.C. Docket No. 02-00336-CV-T-24-TGW.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 6, 2005.
Catherine A. Kyres, Kyres Law Firm, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alan S. Zimmet, Zimmet Unice Salzman & Heyman, P.A., Michele Leo Hinston, Palm Harbor, FL, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before ANDERSON, HULL and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After oral argument and careful review, we cannot conclude that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs FMLA interference claim. In that regard, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in declining to entertain plaintiffs belated assertions of a right to nominal damages or equitable relief; thus, there was no relief available to plaintiff, and the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law.
With respect to plaintiffs associational ADA claim based on an alleged hostile work environment, we can assume arguen-do that a hostile environment could constitute an associational ADA claim, because in this case we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that plaintiff failed to establish a hostile work environment that was sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiffs employment.
Other arguments asserted on appeal are rejected without need for further discussion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.