direction of broadly interpreting the Act when choosing among plausible legal alternatives.” 854 N.W.2d at 28. ■ The legislative direction that we broadly interpret the ICRA makes federal authority that chooses narrow constructions among, available options suspect. Federal courts, and particularly the United States Supreme Court, have demonstrated a marked tendency to embrace a narrow construction of federal civil rights statutes in the face of more generous plausible alternatives. As a result, Congress has repeatedly overridden by statute narrow interpretations of federal civil rights laws. Seven important United States Supreme Court civil lights cases overridden by Congress include General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 134, 97 S.Ct. 401, 407, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute,- Pregnancy
holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that transsexuals are not a protected class under title vii in response to the plaintiffs argument that because a persons identity as a transsexual is directly connected to the sex organs she possesses discrimination on this basis must constitute discrimination because of sex