Should the doctrine of equitable tolling be expanded to include a pro se litigant's mistaken belief about EEOC filing requirements?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should the doctrine of equitable tolling be exso panded to include a situation in which a pro se litigant who filed his case under Title VII EEOC administrative process believed that their complaint filed with the EEOC pursue to work sharing agreement prior to filling in U. S. District Court even though their complaint, timely filed with the EEOC, would consequently be untimely filed in U. S. District Court after the expiration of the ninetyday filing period. 2. Should a pro se litigant be penalized or should his case be dismissed in a case where the U.S. District Court single handedly removed a defendant on a narrow assumption that the court did not believe defendant is in violation of Title VII despite the fact that the EEOC has issued “a right-to-sue letter” in a case with one or more defendants as basis to dismiss the case as untimely. 3. Should a pro se litigant be penalized in a case where the U. S. District Court intentionally removed defendant or refuse to examine others on the basis that one out of the more defendants has an expiration of the ninety days filing period despite the fact that the EEOC has prior issued a right to sue letter against all? 4. Could a discriminatory claim of race and national origin and retaliatory retaliation of likes or related claims grow out of prior EEOC administrative process based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed on the same defendants if such act occurred more than once. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued 5. A related question is whether a claim filed 180 days from the occurrence of the discrimination act under Title VII with the EEOC work sharing agreement is entitled to overcome a failure to timely filed a federal claim and failed exhaust administrative remedies.