1. Whether District of Columbia court of Appeals can ignore instances of retaliation under
Title VII and other serious violations in dismissing a case after proffer of evidence of
retaliatory animus and his own evidence of demonstrated causal connection between his
alleged protected activity and his termination involving tortious interference of counsel?

2. Whether the Court erred in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant rule 60
and finding that there was no organized scheme.

3. Whether a Court Commits Error When It Fails To Consider All of the Facts and
Circumstances Underlying Equitable Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60

4. Whether the District of Columbia court of Appeals erred in Dismissing Petitioner 's
claims of fraud, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to commit fraud, negligence, breach
of contracts inter alia?

5. Did the lower courts err as a matter of law in which contract containing several
provisions including filing of whistleblower claims was violated by the respondent?

6. Can a court determine whether Title VII violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a
congruent and proportional response to the constitutional problems that it remedies, and
thus validly abrogates the States ' Eleventh Amendment immunity as applied to
Petitioner 's allegations, without first determining whether Title VII violation bars the
conduct Petitioner Mr. Mua alleges?

7. Whether failure to docket important evidence and to limit presentation of Exhibits was
harmful to the Petitioner Mr. Mua in the Small claims division?

8. The lower court had no mandate to review discrimination case as a small claims division
of the Superior Court and the Decision undermines the title VII Requirement that
employees report Elarassment at the first opportunity.

Whether District of Columbia court of Appeals can ignore instances of retaliation under Title VII and other serious violations