CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Case: 15-11914 Page: 9 reason for the employment decision.” Jackson v. Ala. State Tenure Comm'n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2005) Additionally, under the Supreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), Ramirez has the ultimate burden of proving that “but for” his protected activity he would not have been terminated. In this appeal case, Appellant submitted information in his Appendix and Brief that is listed in the U.S District Court Civil Docket for the Case. Further, the following are the disputed entries on Appellant Ramirez’s Brief and Appendix: A. APPENDIX NO. 11, P. 120-25 (P.2) Regarding Appendix entry of (Dkt. 101-2) Appellant made a mistake while rushing putting together a due Appendix that needed to be mail therefore, pro se Appellant listed an incorrect document number from the docket. The original intended entry was; (Dkt.106-1 Page 4, Page ID 1807) which at its numbers #29, 30 and 31 are referred as “Bausch & Lomb Job Description for Quality Control Inspector”, it is related, important and appropriate to this issue because it lists the Appellant’s protected Job Responsibilities. Regarding (Dkt. 32-2, p. 2-3 Page ID 323) and contrary to B&L’ request to strike the specific and valid record reference of (Dkt. 32-2, p. 2-3) which, is in the civil Docket and titled: “Plaintiff’s objections and responses to Defendant’s First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Carlos Ramirez.”
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: Case: 15-11914 Page: 7 unnecessary
Page 11 and 12: Case: 15-11914 Page: 11 “…. the
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?