context: In line with the federal statute, several circuit courts have determined an adverse employment action motivated by a pregnancy related condition violates the PDA even though the employee was not pregnant at the time of the discriminatory act.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 534 F.3d 644, 649
citation_a.parenthetical: holding infertility is a pregnancy related condition where plaintiff claimed she was terminated because she took time off work to undergo in vitro fertilization
citation_a.sentence: Hall v. Nalco Co., 534 F.3d 644, 649 (7th Cir.2008) (holding infertility is a pregnancy related condition where plaintiff claimed she was terminated because she took time off work to undergo in vitro fertilization); Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prat.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 140 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1007
citation_b.parenthetical: holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class
citation_b.sentence: Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 369 (3d Cir.2008) (holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination); Kocak v. Cmty. Health Partners of Ohio, Inc., 400 F.3d 466, 470 (6th Cir.2005) (holding federal statute covers situation where employer refused to rehire employee because she might become pregnant again); see also Nelson v. Wittem Group, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1007 (S.D.Iowa 2001) (holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class).