1. Whether the retaliation protection provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in regard to it's current application to §504 protected complaints lodged by non-disabled individuals but on behalf of disabled individuals, should continue to require those non-disabled Plaintiffs to prove the heightened standard that their employers would not have taken any adverse action against them "but for" the existence of an improper retaliatory motive, (the "Nassar test"); or should the Court reconsider University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), and the requirement be changed to only require proof that the employer had mixed motives for taking adverse action.

2. Whether the past ten years show that the Court's prohibition on claims for equal protection under the 14th amendment by "class of one" public employees, established by the holding in Engquist v. Oregon Dept of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008), falls in line with the Constitution.

Whether the retaliation protection provision of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should continue to require non-disabled plaintiffs to prove the heightened 'but for' standard or be changed to only require proof of mixed motives