Was the Petitioner adversely aggrieved by the actions of the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission- DC Field office?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ‘ . 1. Was the Petitioner adversely aggrieved by the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDC Field office’s actions aborting her efforts to exhaust her administrative remedies for her administrative claims? 2. 1s the Supreme Court of the United States precedent established in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 Supreme Court 2015, applicable to the Petitioner’s assertions of being adversely aggrieved by the actions of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDC Field office that were contrary to its statutory obligations? 3. Is Superior Court Rule — Civil Rule 57 ((SCR-Rule 57”), a congressionally mandated grant of general equity powers to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia applicable to the Appellant’s assertions of being adversely aggrieved by the actions of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDC Field office that were contrary to its statutory obligations? 4. As defined by the Court in its May 22, 2019 Judgment, is there substantial controversy as pertains to the statutory requirement to exhaust all available administrative remedies for federal administrative claims, prior to filing in federal court? ii