CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015

Case: 15-11914 Page: 8
“because the only direct evidence of record was that plaintiff was terminated for a
legitimate reason, “[i]n order to avoid summary judgment, [he had to] show that
the record provide[d] circumstantial evidence that his termination was a matter of
reprisal.”) (Quotation and citations omitted)
Applying this standard to the present case should lead this Court to deny
Appellee’s Motion.
Contrary to what Bausch & Lomb asserts from The Motion (Dkt. 189) that,
the Middle District of Florida “…dismissed all issues in the case”, this one states
that, Appellant/Plaintiff case missed to: ‘probe but for – pretext’ hence, Appellant
Ramirez bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
B&L’s reason is merely pretext.
following;
Judge Scriven’s causation analysis motion (Dkt. 189) she established the
(Dkt. 189 p.4)
a. Whether Ramirez’s Remarks at the November 3, 2008 Meeting Constituted
Protected Activity Sufficiently Close in Time to Establish a Causal Connection
(Dkt. 189 p.8) “Thus, Ramirez has presented evidence demonstrating a close
temporal proximity between his employer’s knowledge of his protected activity
and his termination, which is sufficient to satisfy the causal connection prong.”
Accordingly, Ramirez has presented enough evidence to establish a prima facie
case of retaliation under the FWA according to the McDonnell-Douglas burdenshifting
analysis.”
(Dkt. 189 P. 10) “………..the burden shifts back to Ramirez to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that B&L’s reason is merely pretext. Crawford, 529
F.3d at 970. To establish pretext, Ramirez must rebut B&L’s proffered reason for
terminating him by demonstrating that “the proffered reason was not the true