The court turns next to the truly disputed claims at issue on Farner-Bocken’s motion for summary judgment. In light of the foregoing analysis, those claims consist of claims of age and disability discrimination pursuant to state and federal statutes and a common-law claim of retaliatory discharge, in violation of public policy, for filing worker’s compensation claims. In considering the discrimination claims, the court will generally make no distinction between claims based on federal law and comparable claims based on state law. This is appropriate, because the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that federal precedent is applicable to discrimination claims under the Iovra Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216. See Fuller v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 576 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Iowa 1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); and compare
holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry holding plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and  504 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 recognizing standards to determine discrimination are the same under the ra and the ada