DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction This is an Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq. (“ADA”), case, where Plaintiff alleges her employer failed to furnish her with reasonable accommodation for her condition. She sought assignment with a non-smoking partner so as to avoid eye irritation. Instead, after months of such assignments upon her request, Defendant National Grid USA reassigned Plaintiff to a desk job and then offered her reassignment to a remote location to avoid eye irritation from her exposure to tobacco smoke. She also alleges violations of ADA in Defendant retaliating when she complained (Docket No. 1, Compl.). Before this Court are (1) Defendant National Grid’s Motion1 (Docket No. 31) and (2) Plaintiff’s cross Motion2 (Docket No. 34) for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 31) is granted and Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion (Docket No. 34) is denied. II. Background A. Facts Although both parties present their own Statements of Material Facts in support of their respective motions (Docket Nos. 32, Def. Statement; 35, Pl. Statement), the material facts here generally are not in dispute (see generally Docket No. 52, Pl. Statement of Disputed Facts/Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Statement (hereinafter “Pl. Responding Statement”). Although Defendant argued Plaintiff’s Statement misrepresented relevant evidence, failed to acknowledge certain material facts and evidence, and incorrectly asserted that certain facts are “material” to the outcome of this action, Defendant acknowledges an absence of genuine issue of material fact (Docket No. 53, Def. Response to Pl.’s Statement at 1 (hereinafter “Def. Response Statement”)). For convenience, this Court will cite Defendant’s Statement (Docket No. 32) and Plaintiff’s Statement (Docket No. 35) where not repetitive of Defendant’s Statement and uncontested, while noting (when relevant) the opponent’s differences. 1. Plaintiff’s Diagnosis This ADA action arises from Defendant’s consideration of Plaintiff’s chronic corneal condition and its purported effect on her ability to work. First diagnosed in 2002 or 2003, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy and keratoconus, which she claims precludes her from work that exposes her eyes to tobacco smoke (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement 12). Corneal Dystrophy results in the pointing of the cornea, while keratoconus (defined as conical protrusion of the center of the cornea without inflammation, Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 969 (16th Ill. Ed. 1989)), causes the cornea to deteriorate (id. 14). See also Jackson v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, No. 97CV483, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17202 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 1998), describing symptoms. Plaintiff adds that she was also diagnosed with keratitis (Docket No. 52, Pl. Responding Statement 12), the inflammation of the cornea, Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, supra, at 968. Exposure to smoke causes irritation to her eyes (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement
23-24). Despite these impairments, Defendant contends that Plaintiff could work and drive her personal vehicle (id. 17), but Plaintiff disputes this given her symptoms (Docket No. 52, Pl. Responding Statement 17). 2. Plaintiff’s Job and Her Accommodation Request, 2015 Plaintiff worked for Defendant in its Buffalo, New York, office in the Customer Metering Service (“CMS”) department as a Service Representative A (or “SR-A”) (Docket No. 1, Compl. 12; Docket No. 32, Def. Statement
