Resulted from her pregnancy and not from one of those conditions, u. P. S. Rejected her request. That we submit is a violation of the second clause of the pda, which if it means anything, must mean that when an employee seeks an accommodation or benefit due to her pregnancy, that she is entitled to the same accommodation that her employer would have given her. You make it sound as if the only condition that was not accommodated was lifting restriction because of pregnancy. And i did not understand that to be the case. Thats the way you start, you want to say its only pregnancy. Unless ive missed something. Well i so i think on the Summary Judgment record here, your honor, the three very broad classes of limitations that u. P. S. Accommodates do at least theres a genuine issue of material fact this they cover the waterfront of everything but pregnancy. But our position is that those three broad classes by themselves, even if there are some conditions out there that they dont cover sorry