Horacio Sequeira v. Gate Safe, Inc., et al.

Federal law prohibits FALSE STATEMENT IN COURT against Americans with Disabilities Act incumbent in potential companies that force to work under medical restrictions and is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions in this Court: Lowe v. Alabama Power, 244 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2001); D'Angelo v. Conagra Foods, 422 F.3d 1220, 1234 (11th Cir. 2005); Vessels v. Atlanta Independent School System, 408 F.3d 763, 769 (11th Cir. 2005); Murphy v. UPS, 527 U.S. 516, 522-523 (U.S. 1999)... Whether a request to amend a complaint and to modify a scheduling order should be granted whenever a plaintiff complies with Fed. R. Civ. P.15 (c) (1); 15(a)(2) AND 16(b). Whether the issue of fact in dispute concerning Medical restrictions and EEOC's letter were ignored and misinterpreted by District court Order?Whether a qualified individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and amendments Act of 2008, ("ADA") courts must accept, in the face of a certification - by the medical examiner, the employer's false statement filed by defendant stated that the plaintiff-Petitioner as notunder 'current medical restriction or clinical diagnosis in right foot,' or whether, in an ADA case, the employer's determination is subject to dispute and determination by the finder of fact. Whether a false Statement filed by defendants in a motion for summary judgment stated that Mr. Sequeira had reach the maximum medical improvement because was cleared by Dr. Thus he was forced to work in violation of medical restrictions it should be ignored by District Court (as the Eleventh Circuit has held). (i)