1. IF A FACTFINDER CAN CONCLUDE THAT A REASONABLE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE THE PROTECTED PLAINTIF TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER QUALIFY FOR THE JOB, BUT THIS EMPLOYER DID NOT. WHY DOES WMATA CONSCIOUSLY SELECTED LESS-QUALIFIED CANDIDATES? IS DISCRIMINATION PART OF THE PICTURE, AKA V WHC 156 F.3d 1284, 1290.

2. SHOULD THIS COURT GRANT DEFERENCE TO THE EEOC GUIDELINES ON ENGLISH-ONLY LANGUAGE RULES IN THE WORKPLACE, AND FIND LANGUAGE DISCRIMINATION FALL UNDER NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION, GARCIA V SPUN STEAK 998 F. 3d., MALDONADO V CITY OFALTUS, 443 F. 3d. 1294.

3. WMATA IN RETALIATION VIOLATED OVIEDO' S PROTECTED STATUS BY SENDING TO WORK IN A HIDEOUS MAINTENANCE BUILDING. ARE THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT ' COVERED BY SECTION 703 (a)(1) LIMITED ONLY TO HIRING, FIRING, PROMOTION, COMPENSATION, AND LEAVE? BREAUX V CITY OF GARLAND, 205 F. 3d 150, 157, AND PETERSON V LINEAR CONTROL, INC. No. 18-1401.

Whether a factfinder can conclude that a reasonable employer would have hired the protected plaintiff who was significantly better qualified, but this employer did not