limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as applying to women who may become pregnant. Int’l Union, 499 U.S. at 206, 111 S.Ct. at 1207, 113 L.Ed.2d at 178 (“We conclude that the language of [the statute], as well as the legislative history and case law, prohibit an employer from discriminating against a woman because of her capacity to become pregnant....”). In line with the federal statute, several circuit courts have determined an adverse employment action motivated by a pregnancy related condition violates the PDA even though the employee was not pregnant at the time of the discriminatory act. Hall v. Nalco Co., 534 F.3d 644, 649 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prat. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d
holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class holding infertility is a pregnancy related condition where plaintiff claimed she was terminated because she took time off work to undergo in vitro fertilization holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy