With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to work, and Wells Fargo provided Cazeau with resources and information to apply for available positions. Cazeau, however, never followed up with Wells Fargo or applied for a specific, open position after he was cleared to return to work by his doctor. Because no specific demand for an accommodation was made, Wells Fargo had no duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. See Ga-ston, 167 F.3d at 1363; Willis v. Conopeo, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 285 (11th Cir.1997). To the extent that an accommodation was requested, Wells Fargo took reasonable steps to offer information about available positions, and any breakdown in the process of identifying an accommodation is attributable to Cazeau. See Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In short, the district court properly granted

A: holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation
B: holding that once a reasonable accommodation is made the employer has fulfilled its obligation under the ada
C: holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act
D: holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada
A.