ms. halligan: the u.p.s. policy is employees who are unable to perform, would be required to take leave if their inability. and moving 70 pound packages around all day long and as the uncontraverted testimony establishes, there were many employees that prevented from doing that job. justice: i assume you disagree with the petitioner's proposition that when you take these three classes namely off -- on the job injuries, a.d.a. injuries and disapproved by drivers, there is almost nothing left. that's -- ms. halligan: we disagree with that and nothing in the record which suggests that. it is completely without citation or support and it is completely contraverted by the testimony there were many employees who sustained. there were three narrow exceptions, but every employee as the district court held that sustained an off the job injury who couldn't come into work were not accommodated with light duty. justice: why shouldn't there be a trial on that or further proceedings. there were four people who weren't preg

ms. halligan, what's wrong with my middle ground? it's not that mr. bagenstos and the general's ground.e eight hows the employer to come back and say i have a legitimate policy based on seniority. or even i have a legitimate policy based on the source of the injury. but it does put that as a question. whenever an employee is able to point to a similar -- to a class of people who are granted the disability accommodation, who aren't pregnant. >> i just don't think it has any anchor in the worth of the statute itself. the words are -- >> it's quite the opposite. it basically gives a function for what the key words of the statute are other persons not -- or not so affected, but similar in their ability and inability to work. what is that doing? what it does is, it points to the comparator that says off the mcdonnell douglas test. that forces the employer to come back and give a reason for why it is that this ought not to be taken as discrimination against pregnancy. >> i think this court's been clear that the function of the second clause was to repudiate that logic which equates when you l