Whether a factfinder can conclude that a reasonable employer would have hired the protected plaintiff who was significantly better qualified, but this employer did not

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 42 U.S.C. & 2000e-2(a)(1) and Section 703(a)(1) of Title Vil of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual” which respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of the individual’s race, religion, sex, or other protected status. The questions are: 1. IF A FACTFINDER CAN CONCLUDE THAT A REASONABLE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE THE PROTECTED PLAINTIF TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER QUALIFY FOR THE JOB, BUT THIS EMPLOYER DID NOT. WHY DOES WMATA CONSCIOUSLY SELECTED LESS-QUALIFIED CANDIDATES? IS DISCRIMINATION PART OF THE PICTURE, AKA V WHC 156 F.3d 1284, 1290. 2 2. SHOULD THIS COURT GRANT DEFERENCE TO THE EEOC GUIDELINES ON ENGLISH-ONLY LANGUAGE RULES IN THE WORKPLACE, AND FIND LANGUAGE DISCRIMINATION FALL UNDER NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION, GARCIA V SPUN STEAK 998 F. 3d., MALDONADO V CITY OF ALTUS, 443 F. 3d. 1294. . 83 3. WMATA IN RETALIATION VIOLATED OVIEDO’S PROTECTED STATUS BY SENDING TO WORK IN A HIDEOUS MAINTENANCE BUILDING. ARE THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT’ COVERED BY SECTION 703 (a)(1) LIMITED ONLY TO HIRING, FIRING, PROMOTION, COMPENSATION, AND LEAVE? BREAUX V CITY OF GARLAND, 205 F. 3d 150, 157, AND PETERSON V LINEAR CONTROL, INC. No. 18-1401. ; 4