“No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” Plaintiff Meyer, in his amended complaint, has waived any claim of discrimination on the basis of an impairment that limits one or more of the major life activities. However, plaintiff Meyer maintains that the actions of defendant Qualex in withdrawing its offer of employment nonetheless violates the ADA, because the withdrawal was motivated by defendant’s regarding plaintiff as having such a disability. See Baird ex rel Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 470 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs claim fails, however, because he
recognizing that chapter 216s prohibition on disability discrimination is the statelaw counterpart to the ada and that in considering a disability discrimination claim brought under iowa code chapter 216 we look to the ada and cases interpreting its language we also consider the underlying federal regulations established by the equal employment opportunity commission hereinafter eeoc the agency responsible for enforcing the ada holding if a plaintiff claiming discrimination under the ada demonstrates that his or her disability played a motivating role in the employment decision the plaintiff is entitled to relief holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court plaintiff failed to meet his burden holding that one way for the plaintiff to establish discrimination under title ii of the ada and the rehabilitation act would be to show that the defendant could have reasonably accommodated his disability but refused to do so holding that previous sworn statements made by a plaintiff in his request for disability benefits is a material factor for the court to consider in determining whether he is entitled to ada relief