Whether the anti-retaliation provision of section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect the Plaintiffs from discrimination and retaliation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the anti-retaliation provision of section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified as 42 USC 2000e protect the Plaintiffs from discrimination and retaliation for opposing illegal and unlawful employment practices under Title 42 USC 2000e-3(a), and whether the Defendants could be held liable under Title 42 USC 1981, and Title 42 USC 1983. Whether the Plaintiffs claims for relief can be granted without dismissal by the requests of the Defendants under the premise of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(6). Whether there were violations by the Defendants in depriving the Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights, her human rights, and provisions under International Covenants, Conventions and Treaties. Whether the Defendants violated the Privacy and Stalking Act of 1974, and Title 18 USC 2261A to retaliate against the Plaintiff for objecting to being sexually harassed at work.) Whether the Defendants are liable and suable for intentional discrimination based upon nationality, sex/gender and violations of Human and Constitutional R Whether the District Court erred erroneously dismissing the Plaintiffs Complaint and Claims for which relief could be granted pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) without adhering to : Article 3 of The United States Constitution. Whether an oral complaint of a violation is a protected activity that is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act under the anti-retaliation provision of Title 29 USC 215(A)(3). Whether the Defendants are in contempt of court for intentionally failing to produce specified subpoenaed documentation under 29 USC 525 and are they in violation of 29 CFR 516(A) for failing to maintain records. Whether undisputed conduct constitutes “protected activity” for reporting sexual harassment within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Crawford v Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., 555 U.S. 241 (2009) ; Whether the trial court violated the Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment right to due process and thwart civil rights litigation by placing a decision on the Plaintiffs Affidavit for mandatory Rule 37 sanction in excess of $364,000.00 and close the case without deciding it? Whether the courts erred in violating the Plaintiffs right to due process by leaving her Rule 87 motion in perpetual abeyance?