Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that SOX whistleblower protections does extend to cybersecurity risks and breaches

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that SOX whistleblower protections does extend to cybersecurity risks and breaches, especially those | which were used by Russia to cyberattack Ukraine | before the invasion. ; | 2. Whether the court of appeals improperly denied Leckner’s request to admit the same evidence that Leckner was submitted before the record closed but the Department of Labor failed to put it on record. 8. Whether the court of appeals improperly denied Leckner’s motion to supplement the record with new and material evidence that had become available which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the record closed. 4. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog| nize that good faith attempts to file documents must , : constitute filing. 5. Whether it was the Secretary of Labor’s duty to ensure that Leckner’s evidence was put on record. 6. Whether the date of the first complaints must be used if the complaints were filed within the whistleblower provision’s filing period. 7. Whether equitable tolling doctrine applies where Petitioner is allowed whatever time remains under the applicable statute. 8. Whether Secretary of Labor (SOL) Scalia failed to recuse himself because he was General Dynamics’ counsel when he was at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, prior to becoming the SOL. | FA 9. Whether the court of appeals improperly affirmed the dismissal as untimely of Leckner’s retaliation claims under the CAA, CERCLA, SWDA, TSCA and FWPCA because Leckner raised a genuine dispute | of material fact as to whether he filed his whistleblower complaint within 30 days of his employers alleged retaliatory decisions. 10. Whether the court of appeals improperly affirmed the dismissal of Leckner’s retaliation claim under the SOX because Leckner raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in | protected activity under the SOX. | 11. Whether the court of appeals improperly considered Leckner’s contentions concerning his ERA claim, and his other arguments and allegations raised, as Leckner had raised these issues on the first time on appeal and in the ALJ proceeding. 12. Whether the court of appeals improperly denied protections to the whistleblower because these protections are mandated under the plain meaning of | the SOX whistleblower protection statute and each of the other Acts. 13. Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that a conflict between Brown-Root-Willy and the Ninth Circuit may future discourage whistleblowers. 14, Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that context is a key factor of considerable importance. 15. Whether the court of appeals improperly | allowed two employers to unlawfully discriminate against an employee because of lawful acts done by the employee. | ; | | | 16. Whether the court of appeals failed to recog| nize that it is well-established that employers cannot restrict the protected channels of raising concerns. : 17. Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that employers cannot restrict the protected channels of opposition. 18. Whether the court of appeals failed to resolve ’ the conflict between Hukman and the Ninth Circuit which it must have—otherwise if left standing, future whistleblowers will become discouraged. 19. Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that protected activity raised through un-official channels under SOX is defined by the Passiac Valley case and the authority upon which Passiac Valley was based. : 20. Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that the Department of Labor has not changed ; the Valley doctrines and that they remain binding. 21. Whether the court of appeals failed to recognize that the present case is covered under the Munsey standard. 22. Whether the court of appeals failed Leckner need not establish that the concern he raised relates to fraud on shareholders. | . |