or even plausible accommodation.” Mason, 357 F.3d at 1122; see Frazier, 254 F.3d at 1261 (“Although job restructuring is a possible accommodation under the Disabilities Act, ‘[a]n accommodation that eliminates the essential function of the job is not reasonable.’ ” (quoting Smith v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 102 F.3d 1075, 1076 (10th Cir. 1996))). Simply put, an employer need not “modify an essential function of an existing position in order to accommodate a disabled employee.” Mason, 357 F.3d at 1123. Aside from asserting that he is capable of performing purely as HazMat Director, Adair also has not identified any possibility of reassignment to a vacant, nonfirefight-ing position within the Department. See Donahue v. Consol. Rail Corp., 224 F.3d 226, 234 (3d Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Adair testified that he did not know
holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to designate evidence that demonstrates that the defendant abused the qualified privilege holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith holding that in light of the defendants failure to engage in the interactive process liability would be appropriate if  reasonable accommodation would otherwise have been possible holding that in a failuretotransfer case if after a full opportunity for discovery the summary judgment record is insufficient to establish the existence of an appropriate position into which the plaintiff could have been transferred summary judgment must be granted in favor of the defendant  even if it also appears that the defendant failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process