CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015

Case: 15-11914 Page: 14
79, 80, 81, 82, PP. 228-31 (P. 19)
This transcript deposition evidence should be taken in consideration for the sake of
justice to come out and the web of many different and contradictory lies made by
Appellee’s employees so, Appellant can prove ‘But-For Pre Text’ since Gordon’
testimony is important to probe bad intent at the time of the ‘insubordination’
incident.
I. APPENDIX NO. 57, P. 199 (P. 13)
“Appellant references page 9 of the transcript of Javier Callejas’s deposition.
Although part of the Callejas deposition transcript is contained in the record below
(Dkt. 88-2), that page is not in the record.”
However, this page and citation demonstrate what Callejas duties and knowledge
his HR job functions consisted of.
J. APPENDIX NO. 69, P. 214-15 (P. 16)
“Appellant references document bates numbered “CR F. 26 p. 274-275” (Job
Posting) in the appendix. This document is one of the documents produced by
Appellant in response to “Defendant’s Request to Produce”
Appellee is also well aware of this crucial evidence since it was also used as
evidence during the Florida Unemployment compensation proceeding claim and
presented as well, by Appellant, to the EEOC. Finally, it is an essential key
evidentiary document.
K. APPENDIX NO. 72, P. 218-19 (P. 17)
“Appellant references “DEF000462-463 Document responsive to Plaintiff First
Request #17” in the appendix, and in the brief he states they were “Def’s sealed
documents.” These are not in the record or in the Defendant’s sealed documents.”
These e-mails interchanges were produced by the Appellee and its content show
pre-text hence, they are to be considered as, evidence.
L. APPENDIX NO. 73, P. 220 (P. 17)
“Appellant references “DEF349 Sealed Exhibits Document responsive to
Plaintiff’s First Request #1” in the Appendix. This document is not the record
below or in the Defendant’s sealed documents”