I. Without any indication from the District Court's Opinion that it found a defect in Plaintiff's pleadings or factual allegations of his Complaint, the District Court failed to follow the pleading standards required by this Court, including multiple instances of ignoring or refusing to provide a presumption of truth to Plaintiff's multiple, detailed factual allegations and related references to evidence from public sources which support Plaintiff's claims. The defiance of the lower court to respect this Court's precedents and follow the pleading standards of this Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court without comment, raises the following questions concerning the District Court's Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and dismissal.

a) Did the District Court err in finding, without explanation, that "there is no indication that the Gay Pride flag is associated with such animus" (Memorandum Opinion, Appendix A, note 4) even though the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint provide evidence of animus if taken as true during a Rule 12(b)(6) review?

b) Did the District Court defy this Court's precedent in Neitzke v. William, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) when it dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint "based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations" by ignoring Plaintiff's ample factual allegations showing there is some indication that the Gay Pride flag is associated with animus towards Christians in order to find "there is no indication that the Gay Pride flag is associated with such animus" (Memorandum Opinion, Appendix A, note 4)?

c) Did the District Court err by finding "nor did [the flag]...unreasonably interfere with plaintiff's work performance" (Memorandum Opinion, Appendix A, p. 8) under Rule 12(b)(6) when Plaintiffs Complaint did include factual allegations which, if taken as true, show that the display of the offensive flag did interfere with Plaintiff's workperformance?

d) Did the District Court err in finding under Rule 12(b)(6) that Plaintiff did not aflege that he had an employment requirement to work under the offensive flag when Plaintiff's Complaint included factual allegations showing that his work requirements forced him to see the flag displayed in front of the work entrance and that the employer offered no accommodation to alter the requirements of his work which forced him to see the flag multiple times each day?

e) Did the District Court err in finding that Plaintiff faced no discipline following his request for an accommodation under Rule 12(b)(6) when Plaintiff's Complaint provides factual allegations showing constructive discharge and that Plaintiff received threats of termination following his complaint?

f) Did the District Court err by finding that Plaintiff's Complaint did not sufficiently allege that a group of persons was impacted due to religion under Rule 12(b)(6) when Plaintiff's Complaint included factual allegations showing disparate impact towards Christians as a group and evidence of another Christian in the workplace confirming this?

g) Did the District Court err in finding no adverse action towards Plaintiff by the employer under Rule 12(b)(6) when Plaintiff's Complaint includes factual allegations showing adverse actions after his complaint based on hostile working conditions and threats and/or by showing a constructive discharge?

II. The District Court based its constructive discharge analysis on an intolerability standard using a reasonable person in Plaintiff's position without concern for whether the reasonable person used in its analysis is religious or not. The following questions are related to the District Court's approach which was affirmed by the Appellate Court

Did the District Court err in its Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and dismissal of the complaint?