1. Did the Appellate Court properly construe all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, or did it improperly weigh in favor of the Appellee by overlooking and disregarding critical facts, evidence, as well as the contradicting testimony by Ms. Lense that directly disputes and discredits all the Appellee's claims — evidence that would have supported the Petitioner's position.

2. Did the Appellate Court dismiss the FMLA claims prematurely without thoroughly analyzing the Petitioner's claims of pretext, particularly given the suspicious timing as well as chain of events? Specifically, did the court overlook United's actions that included shortening the time allotted for the Petitioner to apply for FMLA leave —contrary to their own policies —and repeatedly contacting Mr. Blockhus while on his approved FMLA leave, which violated FMLA protections. Additionally, did the court fail to recognize United's agreement to postpone any investigation until after Mr. Blockhus's FMLA leave, only to terminate him as soon as he exercised his FMLA rights, suggesting possible unlawful interference with his statutory entitlements by Junior management?

3. Did the Appellate Court err in admitting text messages submitted by the defense that lacked proper authentication, including missing phone numbers, year, and corroborating evidence, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a)? The court further compounded this issue by improperly adding the year to the text evidence —despite its absence —and assuming facts that were neither proven nor supported, contravening established legal standards. Additionally, did the court engage in selective evidence analysis by disregarding harassing communications from Lense to Blockhus, which contained phone numbers, dates, and corroborating evidence, and were acknowledged by Lense as originating from her phone and email?

Did the Appellate Court improperly weigh evidence and dismiss claims by overlooking critical facts and testimony in a civil procedure context?