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.