Referring to Den Hartog, the court observed that the Tenth Circuit gave a "thorough discussion" of the association provision in that opinion.
219 After that, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.220 The court framed the issue as being "whether the
defendant's denial of the plaintiff's request to participate in the spouse rider program constitute[d] an adverse employment action."221 The plaintiff argued that allowing his wife to participate in the spouse rider program was a "fringe benefit."222 Although the court acknowledged that the ADA and its regulations did indeed prohibit discrimination with respect to "fringe benefits,"223 the court concluded that such benefits were limited to "privileges such as health and life insurance benefits, retirement funds, profit-sharing, paid holidays and vacations, and sick leave."224 The plaintiff was unable to
provide the court with any evidence supporting his proposition that the spouse rider program was the type of fringe benefit the ADA and its regulations were meant to protect; therefore, the court concluded that the program was not one of the "terms, conditions, and privileges of employment" covered by the ADA.The court also noted that the plaintiff had "not carried his burden of demonstrating that the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's
participation.
219 After that, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.220 The court framed the issue as being "whether the
defendant's denial of the plaintiff's request to participate in the spouse rider program constitute[d] an adverse employment action."221 The plaintiff argued that allowing his wife to participate in the spouse rider program was a "fringe benefit."222 Although the court acknowledged that the ADA and its regulations did indeed prohibit discrimination with respect to "fringe benefits,"223 the court concluded that such benefits were limited to "privileges such as health and life insurance benefits, retirement funds, profit-sharing, paid holidays and vacations, and sick leave."224 The plaintiff was unable to
provide the court with any evidence supporting his proposition that the spouse rider program was the type of fringe benefit the ADA and its regulations were meant to protect; therefore, the court concluded that the program was not one of the "terms, conditions, and privileges of employment" covered by the ADA.The court also noted that the plaintiff had "not carried his burden of demonstrating that the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's
participation.
