CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case: 15-11914 Page: 10 How is a Court to decide a FWA, labor related, protected activity dispute without taken in proper consideration, the fundamental and basic knowledge of what the Appellant’s work duties were without considering the Appellee’s official, Job Description and requirements of a, Pharmaceutical Quality Control Inspector. B. APPENDIX NOS. 13, P. 131-35 (P. 2); 28, P. 164-65 (P. 7), 83, P. 232 (P. 19), 84, P. 233 (P. 20) Pro Se Appellant urges this Court to consider excerpt pages of the deposition transcript of Thomas whom, held the title of Manufacturing Group Leader for Bausch and Lomb Pharmaceutical and was an active participant in the so called ‘insubordination’ incident that Bausch & Lomb used as a pre text excuse to fire Appellant. 13, P. 131-35 (P. 2) Thomas is, one of Bausch & Lomb deposed employees, and asserted the fact that, Appellant Ramirez gave her a reason as to why Appellant would not start the line 28, P. 164-65 (P. 7) Thomas acknowledging of the fact that, Appellant Ramirez, was absent for more than a month thus, he needed to be retrained on GMP’s when he came back. 83, P. 232 (P. 19) Thomas acknowledging of the fact that, Appellant Ramirez, gave her a reason as to why Appellant would not start the line 84, P. 233 (P. 20) Thomas acknowledging of the fact that, she did not hear Appellant state that he was not going to start the line but, it was Gordon that told her that. Further, the testimonial deposition transcript of Thomas in this case should be permitted to be appropriate because, it is direct evidence to establish that Judge Scriven, was misled by Appellee’s Attorneys, reached and applied an inappropriate judgment when she asserted the following:
Case: 15-11914 Page: 11 “…. the refusal to explain the refusal to start up the line is a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for termination.” Appellant’s former legal non-profit organization assigned attorneys did handle the opposition to Summary Judgment for me. Besides, when I questioned about the absence of provided evidence to my former Attorneys, they expressed to me that they did not consider relevant evidence which, nowadays ends up being relevant. The same applies for the non submittal, unrequested “Plaintiff Affidavit in opposition to defendant MSJ” Citing the frustration and hopelessness of my standing in this case, my former nonprofit counselors declined to assist me in any manner on the appeal due to; lack of funds from the sponsoring nonprofit organization hence, leaving me to my own resources C. APPENDIX NOS. 14, 15, 16, P. 136-38 (P. 4), 70, P. 216 (P. 17), 73, P. 220 (P. 17), 85, P. 234-35 (P. 20) 14, P. 136 (P. 4) DEF000459, makes this honorable Court of Appeals aware that, Appellant’ supervisor Mujagic knew, since she was notified by the company nurse whom also email her as soon as the FMLA leave was approved, of Appellant leave of absence status and the time it comprised. 15, P. 137 (P. 4) DEF000643 This document further leaves in evidence that Appellant’ supervisor Mujagic, signed the approve FMLA on 8-4-08 16, P. 138 (P. 4) DEF000681 is an official Appellee, B & L’s form document probes that the Appellant’s company nurse gave him the authorization to return to work on 11-03-08 at 2:45p.m
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
Page 3 and 4: Case: 15-11914 Page: 3 T.M. Guyer a
Page 5 and 6: Case: 15-11914 Page: 5 during appea
Page 7 and 8: Case: 15-11914 Page: 7 unnecessary
Page 9: Case: 15-11914 Page: 9 reason for t
Page 13 and 14: Case: 15-11914 Page: 13 65, P. 209
Page 15 and 16: Case: 15-11914 Page: 15 Same entry,

CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?