Whether the presence of defendants' recorded slurs is indispensable for a discrimination case or if ample evidence of discriminatory actions is sufficient proof

Questions Presented for a Review | 1. Quotes in the Order (p.6:4-7; p.9:8-13)issued by the Court of Appeal on 5/13/2021, suchas “Kunik did not allege any overt discrimination (emphasis added) based on her age or religion, much less any facts showing that ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ were ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive’ to alter the conditions of her employment...” echo other similar argumentation in the presented case. , Is presence of defendants’ recorded slurs directed at plaintiffs indispensable for a case to be accepted/defined as discriminatory or is the ample evidence of numerous | factually supported discriminatory actions, inexplicably disregarded by courts, against plaintiffs that “speak louder than words” sufficient and must be accepted as the undeniable sufficient proof of such discrimination as the above “silence of the | lambs” cannot cancel the defendants’ discriminatory actions? 2. When required to evaluate the workload of a plaintiff in a discrimination case, courts find it difficult to pronounce a correct determination and often refer to the fact that they lack “the bright line rule” for it. Does this Court agree that comparing e the time the plaintiff used to spend on earning his paycheck before the unwanted changes were introduced into his/her employment history e tothe time spent on his/her new assignment, allegedly based on discriminatory intent or direct discrimination, will allow to determine, correctly and easily, if the new assignment is truly ‘burdensome” and thus discriminatory? :