Whether Plaintiff's sustained muscular atrophy rendered him disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . . 1, Due to the injury, whether Plaintiff's sustained muscular atrophy : : , which rendered him (“Plaintiff “) him disabled under the ; American Disability Act, 42 US Code 12102 Section (1) (A) : which support federal jurisdiction Attached as Ex, A. oo : 2, Whether Plaintiff stated states a claim for which relief can be ‘ ; . granted based upon defendant position that “ Only if the ' Attendance-Policy prohibit, defendant attributable to Industrial : injuries can plaintiff (“Gamble”) succeed on his claim : 3. Whether plaintiff's industrial injuries attached to defendant’s brief opposing plaintiff's claim by stating (“Absences approved under ) . Workers Compensation Law will not be counted as absences . : occurrence”) as stated at par's. No. land 2 attached as Ex, B. _ : 4. Whether defendant harbored animus toward the disability of ! . plaintiff which caused plaintiff's termination because of plaintiffs : ADA claim by 1.) Intentionally misclassifying plaintiff's i . approved worker compensation injuries 2.) Causing defendant to : voluntary dismissing an appeal in opposition to plaintiff's worker . : compensation which was obviously approved among other things ; such as 3.) A long held animus in opposition to plaintiffs . previously filed EEOC Charges and-4.) Which extend to a September of 2007, reinstatement with defendant. See Plaintiff's ; . . : response motion to defendant attached as Ex. C and D. at page : : (“4”) of Bernice B, Donald’s dissent, 5. This court has jurisdiction of these claims pursuant to 42 . s USC. Sec 2000e-5, 42 U.S.C. section 12101 because the action . arise under the laws of the United States of Ametica and involves federal question based on the Americans with Disability Act and ; Ss Title dand Vu . j ! . fe . ( . i '