of the federal statutes for the clear words of the ICRA, Iowa courts do look to the analytical framework utilized by the federal courts in assessing federal law. Hulme v. Barrett, 449 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1989); accord Board of Supervisors of Buchanan County v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Iowa 1998) ("In deciding gender discrimination disputes, we adhere to the Title VII analytical framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-25, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 677-79 (1973).”). 3 . Because, as discussed above, the court has found that Dose was not disabled, the court concludes that he does not have standing to challenge BVU's restricted duty policy. See Hutchinson v. United Parcel Serv., 883 F.Supp. 379, 396 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court grants BVU’s motion for
holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding that plaintiff lacking standing to challenge employers policy that an employee had to be 100 healed before being permitted to return to work where plaintiff could not gain any relief from the per se violation of the ada because the plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation 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