Cir.1997) (“[Employee’s] claim of discrimination based on [employee’s] status as a new parent is not cognizable under the [federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act].”). While we agree the Iowa statute does not recognize a discrimination claim based on De-Boom’s status as a new parent, we think there is substantial evidence linking DeBoom’s termination to her pregnancy. Although we have not yet determined whether the prohibition against termination of “a person disabled by pregnancy because of the employee’s pregnancy” under Iowa Code section 216.6(2)(d) includes a woman who has recently given birth or taken maternity leave, federal courts have interpreted the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) as applying to women who are not pregnant and to wom pp.2d 1001, 1007 (S.D.Iowa 2001) (<HOLDING>). After reviewing interpretations of the
holding infertility is a pregnancy related condition where plaintiff claimed she was terminated because she took time off work to undergo in vitro fertilization holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination