Whether the burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence was improperly imposed on the plaintiff

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , In this case, the evidence Zhang used to have , as proof of his claims was taken away and destroyed } by UnitedHealth Group at time Zhang was fired | because UnitedHealth Group considered Zhang’s | evidence as the company’s intellectual property. , . Therefore, UnitedHealth Group prohibited Zhang | from keeping or taking any evidence with him. | However, Arbitrator Keyes and the District Court of Minnesota required Zhang to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to support or prove -his claims, but the Judge and the district court did not require the Respondents to provide any “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims. Even the Respondent’s declaration, which did not have any | material evidence to support it, was used by the , District Court to rebut Zhang’s claims. Moreover, any findings of fact were set aside as long as they conflicted with the Arbitrator’s decision, | even though Zhang declared that his findings could be ; proved by the job-related evidence which ; UnitedHealth Group possesses, and Zhang even proved them via preponderance of the evidence. | Therefore, the questions presented are: 1. Whether it is in error, or in violation | plaintiff's right of equal protection of the laws, | that the lower court imposed the burden of | proof with clear and convincing evidence on the } plaintiff when the Plaintiff demonstrated, based on both parties’ testimonies, how the Respondents intentionally omitted or ii ; concealed the material facts for misdirection, in the cases, ~ (a) where the relevant evidence the plaintiff | used to have was already taken away . and destroyed by respondents; and (b) where the respondents possess the same | or relevant evidence, but refuse to disclose any of the relevant evidence | they possess to prove or disprove the | findings presented by either the Plaintiff or the Respondents, and even though the Respondents have revealed : } that they know what the relevant | evidence is and where to get the evidence; and (c) where the Respondents have no objections to the findings of fact presented by plaintiff; and | (d) where the Respondents reject to declare thatthe facts they presented are accurate and complete. , 2. Whether it violates a party’s right of Equal Protection of the Laws under the 14% Amendment when the arbitrators or the courts set aside a finding of fact without having a hearing for “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law”, or meeting the standard set by the US Supreme Court, see Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 US 564 (US 1985). 3. Whether the Court shall resolve the factual issues first before making a decision when there are evident conflicts between Plaintiffs findings and Defendant’s findings? . | iii A subsidiary question is whether it violates the 14th Amendment (depriving personal property) when employers do not pay employees’ unused Pay Time Off (“PTO”) due to the employees’ job being suddenly terminated, resulting in a lack of opportunities for the employees to use their PTO.