Question 1:
If the District Court (Judge Wicks) uses an email with incorrect data to build his criteria
and dismiss the case, should a revision of the facts be allowed? This is of significant importance
nationwide because it is a Federal violation to disregard medical accommodations

Question 2:
Plaintiff 's director and manager participated in a sinister setup in which they used pretext
to convince and deceive their HR department and later, the various Courts. There is evidence in
the case documents that Judge Wicks observed how Russo spoke with their HR department
about not allowing Plaintiff to participate in various meetings (Final Written Warning) where
Plaintiff was getting framed. Judge Wicks said in his report (doc 157) that in this case, we
cannot take action because Director Russo is involved.

Question 3:
One of the arguments Judge Azrack used to deny Plaintiff 's case said: "The submitted
Doctor 's note reflects a lack of diligence by Plaintiff given that it predates Plaintiffs extension
request by twelve days. ". Plaintiff did not mean harm. His only objective was to show good
cause and that his symptoms were and are persistent every day, multiple times a day, with
unexpected increases in frequency and potency. This included before, during, and after
Plaintiffs deadline. To clarify, Plaintiff got the doctor 's confirmation of the date when they
adviced him to get medical help.
Can this reason for denying the case be reviewed?

Question 4:
There are other statements on the closing arguments of Judge Wicks and Judge Azrack
that Plaintiff would like to show they were pretextual. Is it acceptable if Plaintiff files a Motion and
describes the various issues there?

Whether a district court may dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation claim based on pretextual reasoning and incomplete medical documentation without allowing factual revision, and whether judicial statements allegedly based on exaggerated characterizations constitute reversible error