1. Is Collateral Estoppel applicable where the prior
Mandamus case dealt only with the issue of whether
the Agency was obligated under LEOSA to provide a
LEOSA card that indicated LEOSA status and the
subsequent Title VII case is based on a new issue of
retaliation?

2. Can the court make inferences based on the
totality of the circumstances to determine that the
alleged lack of good standing was a pretense and allow
the issue of retaliation to be decided by a jury?

3. Did the Agency violate due process by indicating
Mr. Risby was in good standing and then waiting until
long after he retired to inform him that management
had determined he was not in good standing when he
retired, thereby denying him an opportunity to be
heard?

Is Collateral Estoppel applicable where the prior Mandamus case dealt only with the issue of whether the Agency was obligated under LEOSA to provide a LEOSA card that indicated LEOSA status and the subsequent Title VII case is based on a new issue of retaliation?