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: see also
citation_a.identifier: 140 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1007
citation_a.parenthetical: holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class
citation_a.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).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 400 F.3d 466, 470
citation_b.parenthetical: holding federal statute covers situation where employer refused to rehire employee because she might become pregnant again
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).