Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ADA action alleging that defendant failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff-employee’s visual disability and subjected him to disparate treatment by suspending him and reducing his hours. Defendant’s proffered accommodation, which restructured plaintiff’s job to require that he perform only those tasks in ice cream store that he could perform with his impairment, was reasonable. Fact that plaintiff asked for different accommodations did not require contrary result, where instant job restructuring provided plaintiff with equal employment opportunity. Also, plaintiff failed to present evidence that co-worker received more favorable treatment with respect to discipline or reduction in hours, and plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant’s explanation that reduction in hours was based on loss of customer traffic during winter season was unworthy of belief.