1. Why is it okay for the defendant to completely ignore the plaintiffs request for a reasonable accommodation? The plaintiff was never notified whether her request was granted. Therefore, after having been asked to resign, the plaintiff did not know whether to continue working by calling on and visiting doctors and surgeons. She did however, immediately request a reasonable accommodation.

2. Why is it okay for the plaintiffs employer, the defendant, to discuss the plaintiffs work issues with her psychiatrist, who was also an employer of the defendant, without the plaintiffs knowledge?

3. Why is it okay for the defendant to humiliate and shame the plaintiff in a restaurant, loudly demanding that she resign, so that other patrons could hear the conversation?

4. Why is it okay for the defendant to treat the plaintiff differently than he had previously, once he found out that her health issue was that of a psychiatric nature? Previously, he had been very encouraging, even requesting that the plaintiff consider short term disability, stating that, "I need you (the plaintiff) for the long haul; " explaining that he needed her and needed her to be well.

5. Why is it okay for the plaintiffs supervisor to treat the plaintiff differently than another employee who was also having health issues?

6. Did the fact that the plaintiff was taking a medication, manufactured by her employer, (the defendant), effect the company 's decision to terminate her? According to the plaintiffs psychiatrist, an expert in his field, the medication is well known amongst doctors, to exacerbate certain disorders.

Why is it okay for the defendant to completely ignore the plaintiff's request for a reasonable accommodation?