Whether lower courts can dismiss disability-related occupational injury civil complaints by omitting essential facts and misconstruing allegations, creating new pleading standards contrary to FRCP and Supreme Court precedents

QUESTIONS PRESENTED INTRODUCTION STATEMENT I alleged I was fired after I retired. The Defendant admitted they terminated me after I retired; in their Appeal Response Brief. The Appeal Court issued a sua sponte dismissal citing failure to state a claim and failure to request to amend the complaint. Under 42 U.S. Code §12203 ADA and Section 2000e-3(a) of Title VII it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for opposing employer's unlawful action or participating in the EEOC process. Article VI Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution established the “Constitution and laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby...” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 1 provides, “These rules govern the procedures in all civil actions and proceedings in the U.S. district courts... They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties...of every action and proceeding.” The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendments provide US. Citizens substantive and procedural due process protection that assures courts operate within the law and provide fair procedures. In Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc. this Court unanimously ruled that when factually overlapping ‘legal’ and ‘equitable’ claims are joined together in the same action, the Seventh Amendment requires that the former be adjudicated first (by a jury); and that when legal claims triable to a jury are erroneously dismissed, i %, * relitigation of the entire action is “essential to vindicating the [plaintiffs] Seventh ’ Amendment rights.” Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc., 494 U.S. 545 (1990). “The Supreme Court held “[P]rima facie...is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement...This Court has never indicated that the requirements for establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas also apply to the pleading _ standard that plaintiffs must satisfy in order to survive a motion to dismiss.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) When deciding the viability of an ADA pro se disability-related occupational injury civil complaint under a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, The Questions Are: 1. Whether it is proper for lower courts to issue dismissal decisions by ; omitting essential facts and misconstruing factual allegations, and creating decisions not supported by the record. And do they have the authority to create a new pleading standard, and use criteria, and arguments that are contrary to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Supreme Court precedents, Federal Laws, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guides and Manuals. 2. Whether it is proper for Appeal Courts to ignore a defendant’s admission of committing a wrongdoing alleged. And whether frivolous motions to dismiss are proper instead of answering the complaint as FRCP Rule 12(b) requires. 3. Whether it is proper for decisions that are contrary to Federal authorities be unpublished and elude review. And whether such decisions commit or give the appearance of fraud upon the Court. i