“[Plaintiff] stated that it was his custom as supervisor to perform manual labor alongside his employees. Further, as an example of the type of work the supervisor might perform, the job description states that the supervisor ‘may perform manual labor . . . . Just because [Plaintiff] routinely performed manual labor or that the supervisor sometimes ‘may perform’ such labor does not override the consideration that the ability to perform physical labor is not an essential or even mandatory component of the supervisor’s job. Therefore, [Plaintiff]’s inability to walk is not fundamentally inconsistent with [Plaintiff]’s assertion that he was qualified for his position.” Patterson v. Yazoo City, Miss., 847 F. Supp. 2d 924, 942 (S.D. Miss. 2012), aff’d, 2013 WL 1152843 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2013) (per curiam).