Whether discrimination against an employee because of gender identity, sexual orientation, sex constitutes prohibited employment discrimination 'because of ... sex' within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IL Whether discrimination against an employee because of gender identity, sexual orientation, sex... constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of ... sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. I. Whether the employers (HEB) where legally permitted to retaliate, harass, electrocution, tasering, scare tactics, to perform numerous acts of violence by consistently demanding that the Pro Se Petitioner give detailed information about three (3) Federal Lawsuits of court ordered, sealed documents previously filed in Delaware; that the Respondent (et al) had financial investments, partnerships and _ personal interests in these lawsuits; discovery and legal outcomes processes from the State of Delaware of these sealed Federal documents submitted by the Petitioner. Ill. Whether retaliation and harassment from filed complaint by the Petitioner on _ judicial misconduct encompasses a district court judges legal cautious and rational decision-making process capabilities? Factoring in, district court’s posthaste Opinion created by the district court judge was being incautiously executed; only because the Petitioner filed a Judicial Misconduct Complaint, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion was rapidly delivered well before; all of the evidence and scheduling ii order criteria was fully met for the Petitioner’s lawsuit. Title VIT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) discrimination and retaliation protection and Pro Se Petitioner, was forced to move forward, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to protect Debra-Ann Wellman’s (Pro Se Petitioner) U.S. Constitutional Rights. IV. Whether gender identity, sex discrimination, illegal medical exams, electrocution and tasering, stalking, harassment was illegal in every inhumane, Unites States Constitutional aspect? V. Whether the district court erred by prematurely dismissing this lawsuit? VI. Should the Pro Se Petitioner have been punished by the district court judge because she had filed a “Motion To Recuse” the district court judge, along with registering a formal Judicial Misconduct Complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, for this lawsuit, against Judge A.H. Bennett of the district court? VII. Whether the district court openly erred in not providing the Pro Se Petitioner court assigned legal counsel was violating the U.S. Constitutional Fifth and Sixth Amendments for the “Right To Counsel” for criminal violations that was done to Debra-Ann Wellman? Since the district court judge was aware of previous federal lawsuit(s) that the Pro Se Petitioner had filed in the State of Delaware and the Pro Se Petitioner was being continually, violently retaliated against, harassed and abused by the iii Respondent in the present-day lawsuit, CA5 2120660 and 4:20 CV-3139. Due to the Respondent’s involvement in these State of Delaware Federal lawsuits. VIII. Whether the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erred by refusing two (2) motions filed by the Pro Se Petitioner, for a court appointed attorney to represent the Pro Se Petitioner when there were obvious “criminal” charges along with civil charges, therefore, the Pro Se Petitioner was not protected legally in oppositional activity under The Fifth and Sixth U.S. Constitutional Amendments (for the Right To Counsel); Violation of the U.S.C. Fourteenth Amendments’ three (3) clauses especially for “Due Process” and “Equal Protection” are abandoned; including Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) for this type of behavior toward a Pro Se Petitioner not being permitted to be represented by a Court Appointed Attorney/Legal Advocate for her Federal lawsuits needs, was negligent and irresponsible by each of the lower courts. IX. Whether the district court and the Fifth Circuit appeals court erred in denying Pro Se Petitioner subpoenas (Delta Airlines) ignoring obligations to res