Opinion ID: 61297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: floyd’s ada claims

Text: According to the record on appeal, Floyd made his supervisors at Home Depot aware in March of 2004 that vision problems were making it difficult to see the writing on the computer screen, and he could no longer work on the sales floor. Once aware of Floyd’s disability, Home Depot allowed him to work as a temporary greeter at the store until April 12, 2004, when Floyd was no longer able to work. Based upon the record, the district court did not err in finding that Home Depot had made reasonable accommodations for Floyd’s disability. See Talavera v. School Bd. of Palm Beach County, 129 F.3d 1214, 1217 (11th Cir. 1997). In Floyd’s response brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Floyd did not respond to Home Depot’s argument that there was no causal connection between Floyd’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge and his termination which occurred five months later. Instead, Floyd argued that Home Depot retaliated against him by refusing to allow him the breaks he needed to care for his medical needs. Accordingly, the district court properly found that Floyd had abandoned his ADA retaliation termination claim. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the court correctly found that Floyd’s new ADA claim was not 3 properly before the court because it was argued for the first time in his brief in opposition to Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment. See Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004).