Whether the plaintiff's EEOC filing was timely, whether the plaintiff was a qualified individual under the ADA, whether the plaintiff's accommodation requests were reasonable, and whether the plaintiff's termination was due to retaliation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED e Defendants falsely claimed that the plaintiff did not file a timely EEOC, and ignored evidence supporting timely filing. Moreover, the plaintiff should be allowed to subpoena further evidence to support his timely filing of an EEOC discrimination case.Furthermore, this was one of the reasons why the ADA case was wrongfully dismissed. e Judge incorrectly cited reasons to deny plaintiff eligibility as a qualified person under ADA, even though multiple material facts suggest that the plaintiff meets all criteria to be qualified as a protected individual under ADA law. e Plaintiff argues that multiple errors were made when considering his accommodation requests, which were cited as ‘unreasonable’. Also, the plaintiff highlights that some of the requests were ignored by the judge. However, there are material facts which show that all accommodation requests were reasonable under ADA law, and thus were not unlawfully dismissed. e Plaintiff argues that defendants’ true reasons for terminating his employment were ignored, even though maierial facts were presented as support. Moreover, the plaintiff is confused as to what constitutes termination by retaliation, as he was terminated after requesting reasonable accommodations and documentation to file discrimination case, which by ADA law meets the criteria to establish a discrimination case. f5 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND