1. Whether Appellant was discriminated against in the initial pre
qualification process when he was qualified for the position of custodian
and building maintenance mechanic, but Luna Nelson, General Service
Department ("GSD" ) failed to refer Chhim 's applications to the recruiter
manager based on her conclusory allegation, without any evidence, that
Chhim was terminated in 1995 due to performance? Contrary to the
City's allegations, Chhim 's yearly performance reviews, found at
Appendix G, demonstrate that Appellant Chhim had good performance.
Was this a pretext for discrimination?

2. Whether Appellant exhausted his Age and Retaliation claims with the
EEOC, whether it was error for the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to fail to consider whether Appellant
discriminated against based on "Age" discrimination, and whether he was
retaliated against for filing EEOC complaints against The City of
Houston?was

3. Whether the lower Court erred in not recognizing that Appellant Chhim
was entitled, by way of the Settlement Agreement " with the City of
Houston dated October 20, 1994, to apply for, be interviewed for and be
hired for any job with the City of Houston General Service Department,
as long as it was not with the City of Houston Aviation Department, and
did the City of Houston violate and breach the Settlement Agreement,
thereby entitling Appellant to be considered and hired for the positions
for which he applied and for which he was found to be qualified? Exhibit
A, of Appendix F, is the Settlement Agreement, between Appellant
Chhim and the City of Houston. Pursuant to Paragraph 2, it states "I
understand and agree that the City and the Department of Aviation do not
admit any fault in any matter and that this settlement is only to make
peace and to allow me to start fresh in my new position. " Exhibit A of
Appendix F.

Whether Appellant was discriminated against in the initial prequalification process?