Whether the court of appeals erred when it upheld a district court opinion that conflicted with decided Supreme Court case law for EEO retaliation and 'Cat's Paw' negligence under Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 704(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and failed to consider Petitioner's request to apply 'Cat's Paw' negligence liability, and upheld a dismissal of his Title VII Civil Rights Act EEO discrimination case by the District Court for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P. 58, and violated his constitutional due process rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether the court of appeals erred when it upheld a district court opinion that conflicted : with decided Supreme Court case law for EEO retaliation and “Cat’s Paw” negligence under Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 704(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and failed to consider Petitioner’s request to apply “Cat’s Paw” negligence liability, and upheld a dismissal of his Title VII Civil Rights Act EEO discrimination case by the District Court for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P. 58, and violated his constitutional due process rights. 2. Whether the alternative review process offered by the Merit Systems Protection Board : (MSPB), as an emergency option due to the lack of a functioning quorum, negatively influence and impact a Petitioner’s due process rights when processing Title VII EEO mixed cases. . {i] .