Id. at 483 (citing Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1094 (5th Cir. 1996)). 842 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2016). Id. at 1345-47.

The purpose of such language is to indicate that the range of reasonable accommodations is broad and that its contours are clarified by, but not limited to, the specifically enumerated items. See EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. , 842 F.3d 1333, 1345 & 1345 n.5 (11th Cir. 2016). It is also to suggest that what counts as a reasonable accommodation is not an a priori matter but one that is sensitive to the particular circumstances of the case.

Reassignment to a different position is another accommodation that may be reasonable. United States Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333, 1345 (11th Cir. 2016).

Although neither side called the Court's attention to an on-point case, it seems that a plaintiff like Marquez must actually apply for the position in order to trigger an accommodation claim. See e.g. , U.S. EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. , 842 F.3d 1333, 1346 (11th Cir. 2016) ("We agree that the ADA does not require reassignment without competition for, or preferential treatment of, the disabled."). In order to compete for a position, of course, Marquez had to apply for the position.

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that at the time of the adverse employment action, (1) he had a disability, (2) he was a qualified individual, and (3) he was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of his disability. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. , 842 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C. , 492 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2007) ). "Disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment." St. Joseph's Hospital , 842 F.3d at 1343–44 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(1) (internal quotations omitted)).

We review a grant of summary judgment in an ADA case de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333, 1342-43 (11th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals suffering from a disability due to their disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 2016); Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001).

While the ADA provides that a reasonable accommodation may include reassignment, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B), the Eleventh Circuit has stated that “[t]he ADA does not say or imply that reassignment is always reasonable.” United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333, 1345 (11th Cir. 2016). Instead, “reassignment will be reasonable in some circumstances but not in others

" Rule 59(e) allows courts to alter judgments only where there is ‘newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.’ " EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. , 842 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Arthur v. King , 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) ). "A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur , 500 F.3d at 1343 (cleaned up).

We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict de novo. See E.E.O.C. v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 2016). To conduct our review, we "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury's verdict."