Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims against the respondent company for hostile work environment, retaliation, and racial discrimination

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4 L Derd~ Geshne Pra ce (Piebeet= heb) “Ys. Hoste Tclgs Sot (lot Oe 2-167. _ Donke Tw 1219% Csvdeny | , 48 ty Bigh% toher THe oF 137 a 4 wT anol. cy Attend rgacG Jove. bern bbly Wile Tee by fedo2) ors Blom ~ wi ft acemperect, Fut fe Shi vee S. Fiselme. , aul alte by heel Parl atslna for flat pe Qrta Liye Lrnizaryz, tx clucturg Cade_ Maveaper st. hae Vos gue2 aud. Aso a Blaek feo Se clerye/s Pe Ed Wyn . fy Dn veey 20 Ar MY Cote for Dien pf aeliey with my fertmer Em flopy bx Bue Serv Sear, Orv hae her 1 Jk bmetleac fiir Cog C VOR) heute fa Bes Blrwr hss wads an Ex barle wt th Of fous, Cuntel fo wake ehek wih my Care, fhe ported. pee. fo few hosie Oundelt, 2 fourte gays cadens of Leer 77 a The Jagger. , Bo oS wan lk F soAhecl the Case “Th The Pleat, bu, prolly L wee “ ; “a Theo, They fed me pay mock money thal L wou led, E hee 46000 200, They Soc the mock, (olor uf lr the Jretire They weed | EO a Black Pho 32 ofr k % Re wb ite Ely ‘eet wu! Le T, Ganr2ed wth "3 fuer fo make a Secnet Qral r, Plrees wy Cate wi fh fis H4A aro Sh, ; : . ° CSeri, . er He 001 t FO Seeansty for The Soume Omtunl Y 6.000 009 vo Sever ar Vitle tens we pe PrCuned. Hh 263 a 6 fo MY 2 Cody duel, a , ag: [ey Cage. fer Seven ek tetas wif thot Cotactor aay — i; thea. my tui Puess bri th But fi nacy Jed pe FF ser me _ SCHL dha Co. Le . , d) fable spr wg a 7 ite? omy Cpe aelm/aisten hie Raley #) fur (a the 7 CuCR KE Y Pu my Beeuse fo prachce pany _ Pipe my Laced f (Onl) Ach ag, Shotts Y MY 0 h\ad, aun lou fid. bey K / CF dude Hacto 4 oktolen , a