conditions have typically been found to be impairments where they are not part of a “normal” pregnancy. See Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare LLC, No. 2:08-CV-4 RM, 2010 WL 1568606, at * 14 (N.D.Ind. Apr.16, 2010) (surveying cases and noting that “only abnormal complications might qualify as impairments” under the ADA). Susceptibility to a miscarriage, moreover, has been deemed by some courts to be such a condition. See Cerrato v. Durham, 941 F.Supp. 388, 393 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (adopting the American Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs’ conclusion that a “threatened ... miscarriage” is a “substantial complication” not part of an “entirely normal, healthy pregnancy”); Soodman v. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, No. 95 C 3834, 1997 WL 106257, at *6 (N.D.Ill. Feb.10,1997) (<HOLDING>). Although other courts have held that
holding that the inability or significantly impaired ability to cany a viable fetus to term is  a substantial impairment  under the ada holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs holding that alcoholism is not a per se disability under the ada and evidence that alcoholics in general are impaired is inadequate to show the substantial limitation of one or more major life activities holding that an individual whose ability to lift is substantially impaired qualifies as a disabled person within the meaning of the ada holding that the plaintiffs inability to engage in frequent lifting of more than ten pounds  would not significantly restrict her ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes