(7th Cir.1992). In McWright the court interpreted the Rehabilitation Act and found that sterility was a “handicap” under the Act. However, in McWright the defendant did not dispute that infertility was a handicap under the statute. Id. at 226. Furthermore, the regulations developed under the Rehabilitation Act specifically defined the protected class of handicapped individuals to incl life activities” should not be construed to include activities such as “procreation” and “caring for others.” In interpreting a statute, a reviewing court must defer to the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if that construction is reasonable. Arkansas AFL-CIO v. F.C.C., 11 F.3d 1430, 1441 (8th Cir.1993); Independent Com. Bankers v. Fed. Reserve System, 838 F.2d 969, 974 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The EEOC’s interpretation is reasonable. In
holding that when an agency is charged with administering a statute part of the authority it receives is the power to give reasonable content to the statutes textual ambiguities holding that even in considering a purely legal issue a court should grant great deference to reasonable interpretation of statutes by agencies charged with administering those statutes holding that agencys construction of statute it was charged with enforcing was entitled to deference because it was reasonable in line with the statutes meaning and related to its expertise holding that where multiple agencies are charged with administering a statute a single agencys interpretation is generally not entitled to chevron deference but concluding that there would be no comparable concern if all three agencies charged with administering the statute in question pressed the same interpretation before this court holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results