Kimberlie Durham worked as an emergency medical technician whose job required regular lifting. During pregnancy, her physician restricted her from lifting more than fifty pounds, so she requested temporary light duty or dispatcher work. Rural/Metro had accommodated employees injured on the job with similar or more restrictive lifting limits but generally did not accommodate off-the-job injuries. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court had applied the Supreme Court’s Young v. United Parcel Service pregnancy-discrimination framework incorrectly at summary judgment. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not automatically require the most favorable accommodation given to any other worker, but an employer’s policy choices may support an inference of intentional discrimination. The court remanded for the district court to evaluate the remaining legitimate-reason and pretext questions under that framework. Judge Boggs concurred with additional explanation about the placement of the comparator analysis.