United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2067 KAREN R. HIRLSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:17-cv-04699-TWP-MPB — Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2023 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 ____________________

Before HAMILTON, BRENNAN, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Cir- cuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Karen Hirlston worked for several years as the Optical Manager at a Costco store. Hirlston has disabilities that make it hard for her to bend, walk, and stand. In 2015, Costco planned to remodel the opti- cal department in a way that would make it more difficult for Hirlston to continue working in that job. The parties dis- cussed accommodations, including work restrictions 2 No. 22-2067 designated by Hirlston’s doctor. Costco determined that no accommodations would allow Hirlston to continue as Optical Manager after the remodeling. Costco also decided that she had not been carrying out the essential functions of her job before the remodeling. She had been acting contrary to her doctor’s restrictions and delegating to other employees tasks that Costco believed were essential for her to carry out herself. Costco placed Hirlston on involuntary leave and later as- signed her to a different job paying less money. Hirlston filed this suit under the Americans with Disabili- ties Act (ADA) against Costco for disability discrimination and retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(8), 12112, & 12203(a). A jury ruled against her, finding that she was not qualified to do the Optical Manager job at the critical time, in November 2015. Hirlston has appealed. She argues that the trial court used an improper special verdict form, gave an erroneous jury instruction on the central issue of being qualified for the job, and erred by allowing Costco to show the jury two pho- tographs that it had not timely disclosed in discovery. We affirm. First, the special verdict form simply was not erroneous. Second, Hirlston forfeited her appellate challenge to the jury instruction by failing to make a timely objection. On plain-error review, we find that the key instruction in- cluded an error, at least in the abstract, but we are not con- vinced the error harmed Hirlston’s case so as to require a new trial despite her forfeiture. Finally, the judge did not abuse her discretion by allowing both plaintiff and defendant to intro- duce a few photographs of the workplace that had not been disclosed in discovery. No. 22-2067 3 I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Hirlston’s Job as Optical Manager Since Hirlston’s childhood, she has lived with disabilities that render her unable to lift significant weights, to stand for long periods of time, or to walk without a cane. Hirlston found a job at a Costco store in Indianapolis in its optical de- partment. She quickly earned a promotion to Optical Man- ager. Five years into her tenure, though, Costco announced a plan to remodel the optical department. Before the remodel, computer monitors for handling customer orders and other information had been placed on countertops. With that ar- rangement, Hirlston could sit down to work with customers. Part of the planned remodeling was to build computer moni- tors directly into the counters to keep others from seeing cus- tomers’ confidential health information. The arrangement would have required Hirlston to stand much longer than she could tolerate. Hirlston approached Costc