Whether the appeals court ruling conflicts with previous Supreme Court decisions on important matters and cannot survive application of the correct legal standard

No question identified. : (ii) .DID DEFENDANTS ASSERTION OF UNDISCLOSED ADDITIONAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS AGAINST ROLLAND, AFTER HIS DISCHARGE. CREATE AN INDEPENDENT TERMINATION REASON, ,FOR FIRING HIM? AT, (24-39 ). (iii ).DOSE THE “ HONEST GOOD FAITH BELIEF” STANDARD EXCUSE DEFENDANTS INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION ON DEFENSE OF MISTAKEN BELIEF. WHILE BOTH STANDARDS REQUIRES THE SAME TO BE BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE?PAT, (22-81). ( iv) . CAN SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION BE WAIVED ON A RETIALTION CLAIM THAT THE DISTRICT COURT PREVIOUSLY HAD BUT, DISMISSED BY STIPULATION UNINTENTIONALLY ? , AT,(_). ( v).WAS PETITIONER DISCRIMINATORLY INTENTIONALY DEPRIVED OF THE EQUAL OPPOORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DEFENDANTS UNWRITTEN POLICY PROBLEM RESOL~ LUTION AS COMPARED AND EXTENTED TO OTHER DISABLITY EMPLOYEE’S? AT,(32-35). (vi). ARE CHARGING DOCUMENT THAT MAKE-UP PART OF THE APPEAL. REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL RULE 10-F.A.R.P.? AT,( 35 AND 26), ( vii). IS THE ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ( ADAAA) THE SAME TO BE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE COLORADO ANIT-DISCRIMINATION ACT AGAINST DISABILED PERSONS.? AT, (8-13 ). (VII). WERE THE AFFIDAVITS OF DEFENDANTS WITNESS’S. GOOD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THAT WERE NEITHER, SWORN ARE MADE UNDER PENALITY OF PERJURY, AS . TRUE AND CORRECT STATEMENTS/ BASED ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY? AT, (27-74). (2). (IX). WAS PLAINTIFF, WITH A DISABILITY (BACK-CONDICTION) DISCRIMINATORY TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER EMPLOYEE’S OF DEFENDANTS THAT DECLINED” TO GO” ON LADDERS? AT, (43-45). (x1). DID THE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES COMMITTEE REVERSALIBLE ERROR, BY THE? WEIGHING OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS’S/ REASONABLE DOUBTS AND, DRAWING OF INFERENCES WHICH ARE FUNCTION FOR A JURY, NOT A JUDGE? AT, (56-59). (XII). WAS ROLLAND DENIED A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION/ A REQUIRED INTERACTION PROCESS BY DEFENDANTS. PURSUANT TO THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT AS AMENDED, 2008/EFFECTIVE JAN. 2009? AT, (50-79). (XII). CAN IT BE INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT? THAT DEFENDANTS CHANGE OF FACTUAL POSITION FOE ROLLANDS DISCHAGE, WAS PROHIBITD BY DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FROM DISTRICT COURT. TO THE APPEALS COURT)? AT, (41-43). : (XIV). WAS DEFENDANTS INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATORY, UNILATERAL DISCHARGE OF ROLLANDS EMPLOYMENT. THE RESULT OF MALICIOUS MANIPULATION OF AN EMPLOYEE OF ITS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS A CONDUIT FOR ADVRSE ACTION? AT, (60-81).