1. Did the court of appeals err in requiring Petitioner Vaun Monroe ("Monroe") to show, on a motion to dismiss, that equitable estoppel can only arise when a defendant is shown to have engaged in a "deliberate design" to mislead him, which ruling is in tension with the standard for equitable estoppel employed in the majority of the other Circuit Courts of appeals as well as the Circuit Courts inter se ?

2. Did the court of appeals err in giving no deference or weight to the EEOC's assumption of jurisdiction on Monroe's charge filing, and subsequent investigation of the charge for three years resulting in the issuance of a "right to sue" letter, as reflecting a timely assertion of his claims with that agency?

Did the court of appeals err in requiring Petitioner Vaun Monroe to show, on a motion to dismiss, that equitable-estoppel can only arise when a defendant is shown to have engaged in a 'deliberate-design' to mislead him