u.p.s., and albertsons, inc., v. kirkingberg and 2002 was a toyota v. williams case. all of these involved the issue of whether an assistive device or medicine would enable -- that would enable a person to work or perform their major life activities, would that remove a person from coverage of the ada? think about it. let's say that -- well, sutton v. united airlines, two twin sisters wanted to get a job, passed all the tests but they had uncorrected vision in one of their eyes of 2,200 or something but if they wore their glasses, they had 20/20 or better. united airlines said you're not covered by ada because when you wear your glasses, you're not disabled any longer. but another case, murphy had high blood pressure but he controlled it with blood pressure medicine. u.p.s. said, no -- i'm sorry, murphy was the guy with one eye. he had one eye, but he compensated for it as most people do. but they said you can't drive a truck anymore because -- even though he could pass all the tests and everything, they said you're not covered by the ada because you're obviously not