Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s verdict in favor of defendant-employer in action alleging that defendant’s failure to accommodate plaintiff-employee’s 15-pound lifting restriction and defendant’s eventual termination of plaintiff violated ADA. Jury could properly find that plaintiff was not qualified individual with disability, where record showed that plaintiff’s job required that she regularly lift products sold at defendant’s store, including batteries, that weighed between 25 to 75 pounds. Fact that defendant employed another individual who had paralyzed arm did not require different result, where said individual had different job and did not have similar lifting restriction. Ct. further observed that while plaintiff’s co-workers were encouraged to help others with lifting tasks and in fact assisted plaintiff in her lifting tasks, such fact did not transform lifting tasks associated with plaintiff job into non-essential components of her job, since defendant did not specifically substitute or reassign plaintiff’s lifting tasks to others as normal course of its business.