1. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog
nize that SOX whistleblower protections does extend
to cybersecurity risks and breaches, especially those
which were used by Russia to cyberattack Ukraine
before the invasion.

2. Whether the court of appeals improperly denied
Leckner 's request to admit the same evidence that
Leckner was submitted before the record closed but
the Department of Labor failed to put it on record.

3. Whether the court of appeals improperly denied
Leckner 's motion to supplement the record with new
and material evidence that had become available
which could not have been discovered with reasonable
diligence before the record closed.

4. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog
nize that good faith attempts to file documents must
constitute filing.

5. Whether it was the Secretary of Labor 's duty
to ensure that Leckner 's evidence was put on record.

6. Whether the date of the first complaints must
be used if the complaints were filed within the whistle
blower provision 's filing period.

7. Whether equitable tolling doctrine applies
where Petitioner is allowed whatever time remains
under the applicable statute.

8. Whether Secretary of Labor (SOL) Scalia failed
to recuse himself because he was General Dynamics '
counsel when he was at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, prior to becoming the SOL.

9. Whether the court of appeals improperly
affirmed the dismissal as untimely of Leckner 's retal
iation claims under the CAA, CERCLA, SWDA, TSCA
and FWPCA because Leckner raised a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether he filed his whistleblower
complaint within 30 days of his employers alleged
retaliatory decisions.

10. Whether the court of appeals improperly
affirmed the dismissal of Leckner 's retaliation claim
under the SOX because Leckner raised a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in
protected activity under the SOX.

11. Whether the court of appeals improperly
considered Leckner 's contentions concerning his ERA
claim, and his other arguments and allegations raised,
as Leckner had raised these issues on the first time
on appeal and in the ALJ proceeding.

12. Whether the court of appeals improperly
denied protections to the whistleblower because these
protections are mandated under the plain meaning of
the SOX whistleblower protection statute and each of
the other Acts.

13. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog
nize that a conflict between Brown-Root-Willy and the
Ninth Circuit may future discourage whistleblowers.

14. Whether the court of appeals failed to
recognize that context is a key factor of consid
erable importance.

15. Whether the court of appeals improperly
allowed two employers to unlawfully discriminate
against an employee because of lawful acts done by
the employee.

16. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog
nize that it is well-established that employers cannot
restrict the protected channels of raising concerns.

17. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog
nize that employers cannot restrict the protecte

Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that SOX whistleblower protections does extend to cybersecurity risks and breaches