1. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from this Court's Rule 56 jurisprudence by sanctioning summary judgment where the district court failed to credit, acknowledge, or address record evidence favorable to the nonmovant, instead resolving factual disputes and engaging in speculation in favor of the moving party, contrary to Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

2. Whether an appellate court denies meaningful review and fails to conduct the required de novo review when it sanctions summary judgment without addressing record evidence cited by the appellant, defers to a procedurally flawed district court ruling, or refuses to review the underlying record necessary to determine compliance with Rule 56, contrary to Tolan v. Cotton, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996), and Agyeman v. I.N.S., 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002).

3. Whether a district court effectively enters a directed verdict under the guise of summary judgment, sanctioned on appeal, when it disregards or rejects the nonmovant's evidence and version of events without explanation, draws inferences in favor of the moving party, or substitutes speculation for record based analysis, in violation of Rule 56 and the Seventh Amendment.

4. Whether continued application of the McDonnell Douglas framework at summary judgment, without first requiring courts to credit record evidence as Rule 56 mandates, conflicts with this Court's precedent prohibiting the weighing of evidence and the resolution of factual disputes, particularly in the context of modern employment litigation.

5. Whether due process and fundamental fairness under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require a meaningful remedy when both the district and appellate courts sanction summary judgment based on factual findings contradicted by the evidentiary record, leaving no effective mechanism to enforce this Court's Rule 56 precedents.

Whether the Ninth Circuit improperly applied Rule 56 summary judgment standards by failing to credit record evidence and resolving factual disputes in favor of the moving party