Is Collateral Estoppel applicable where the prior Mandamus case dealt only with the issue of whether the Agency was obligated under LEOSA to provide a LEOSA card that indicated LEOSA status and the subsequent Title VII case is based on a new issue of retaliation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is Collateral Estoppel applicable where the prior Mandamus case dealt only with the issue of whether . the Agency was obligated under LEOSA to provide a LEOSA card that indicated LEOSA status and the subsequent Title VII case is based on a new issue of retaliation? 2. Can the court make inferences based on the totality of the circumstances to determine that the alleged lack of good standing was a pretense and allow the issue of retaliation to be decided by a jury? 3. Did the Agency violate due process by indicating Mr. Risby was in good standing and then waiting until long after he retired to inform him that management . had determined he was not in good standing when he retired, thereby denying him an opportunity to be heard?