Whether an appellate court is required to remand a case to the district court when the appellate court determines the district court used erroneous legal standards in granting summary judgment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Immediately after beginning his employment with Respondent as a pharmacist in March 2015, Petitioner became the direct object of his Caucasian coworkers’ and supervisor’s constant ridicule, insults, rumors, and innuendoes concerning his race and national origin, false allegations about his work product and reputation; all of which Respondent allowed to continue unabated, which led to exacerbation of the hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment using erroneous standards. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, a divided panel acknowledged the district court’s erroneous standards but refused to reverse and remand the case to the district court. Furthermore, following this Court’s decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, a majority of Courts of Appeals have held that a Title VIV§ 1981 plaintiff is entitled to use Cat’s Paw Theory of liability if the facts of the case show that a jury could find the employer liable under Cat’s Paw Theory. In this case, the Fifth Circuit’s Panel, while admitting that issuing Cat’s Paw Theory instructions to the jury as to Petitioner’s Title VII retaliation claims would have been proper, refused to reverse judgment on the retaliation claims at issue, ratifying post hoc and non-substantive justifications : cited by the District Court. The questions presented are: 1. Whether an appellate court is required to re, mand the case to the district court when the appellate ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued court determines the district court used erroneous legal standards in granting summary judgment as to a hostile work environment claim under Title VII/ § 1981; particularly when the adjudicating panel is divided on the issue. 2. Whether a victim of hostile work environment, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, has the duty to perpetually make the employer aware of illegal harassment after the employer failed to remedy the hostile work environment despite being repeatedly put on notice, by the victim, of said hostile work environment. 3. Whether as part of the “inescapable duty of the trial judge to instruct the jurors, fully and correctly, on the applicable law of the case, and to guide, direct, and assist them toward an intelligent understanding of the legal and factual issues involved in their search of the truth,” a district court is required to issue Cat’s Paw Theory instructions to jury upon due request by a plaintiff in a case in which the facts support a Cat’s Paw Theory of causation. 1 9C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2556 (1971). } iti RELATED CASES Yves Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., No. 5:17ev-18, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District , Texas. Judgment entered March 12, 2020. | |! Yves Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., No. 2040284, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judg| ment entered January 10, 2022. } | | iv