With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Plaintiffs failure to accommodate claim is not sufficiently like or related to the language in his underlying Complaint/Charge, such that he should be allowed to proceed. The Plaintiff contends that his use of the phrase, “I was discharged from my job for being sick” was meant to allege that he was terminated because of his disability. He also points to the fact that he called in sick to work six “discharge” to mean a failure to accommodate would be overstepping the bounds of the like or related to standard and fabricating a claim that is not there. An allegation of “discharge,” while likely to trigger an investigation into a termination, is not reasonably likely to trigger an investigation into failure to accommodate absent additional information. See Weigel, 122 F.3d at 464 (<HOLDING>). The determinative issue here is whether a

A: holding that failure to develop a legal argument supporting a claim results in waiver of the claim
B: holding that a failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada and pointing out that a failure to accommodate claim and a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada are not like or reasonably related to one another and one cannot expect a failure to accommodate claim to develop from an investigation into a claim that an employee was terminated because of a disability
C: holding that although the plaintiff has suffered no adverse employment action she may still raise a claim of discrimination based on the alleged failure reasonably to accommodate her disability
D: holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability
B.