Will the Supreme Court continue to allow federal district and appellate courts to pervert the original intention of the summary judgement device and thus violate millions of Americans civil rights to a jury trial, pursuant to the Seventh Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Federal district and appellate courts have adopted an adjudication standard for employment discrimination cases that are informed only by their, documented, hostility towards employment discrimination Plaintiffs which, therefore, results in their biases in favor of employers, whether intended or not: Plaintiffs complaints are that the bias is deliberate and intentional. ; The contempt for employment discrimination Plaintiffs increases when the Plaintiff represent themselves as pro se litigants. Therefore, especially for pro se litigants, due to their hubristic and unwarranted hostility, federal district and appellate judges tend to see what they want to see; quote case precedents that do not apply directly to Plaintiffs’ cases; and interpret the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework NOT pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure guidelines but to their misguided and erroneously applied “inherent authority”. However, in doing so, district and appellate judges deprive thousands, if not millions, of Americans the rights guaranteed them through the Seventh Amendment of United States Constitution which is part of the Bill of Rights: A TRIAL BY JURY. Therefore, the questions presented to this Honorable Court are: 1) Will the Supreme Court continue to allow federal district and appellate : courts to pervert the original intention of the summary judgement device and ii . thus violate millions of Americans civil rights to a jury trial, pursuant to the Seventh Amendment. 2) Will the Supreme Court continue to allow federal district and appellate courts to routinely ignore presented facts regarding employment discrimination lawsuits on subjects of race and age, especially? 3) Will the Supreme Court continue to allow federal district and appellate courts to ignore the rules and guidelines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus uphold the civil rights violation of an entire class of older Americans because it requires those judges to do the work and serve the American public as they are paid to do. iii _ PARTIES PETITIONER 1) Dr. Isaac Brunson Licensed and certified music teacher with experience teaching at secondary public schools and collegiate environments. The petitioner was 63 years old when he was denied an interview for the job in which he was teaching. RESPONDENTS 1) DeKalb County Schoo! District — One of the largest public-school districts in Stone Mountain, Georgia. 2) Dr. R. Stephen Green — Superintendent of DeKalb County School District 3) Linda Woodard — Director of Human Capital Management (HR) for DeKalb County School District 4) Dr. Angelica R. Collins — Assistant Director of Human Capital management (HR) for DeKalb County School District 5) Jocelyn Harrington — Principal at Pleasantdale Elementary School in Doraville, Georgia, where petitioner, Dr. Isaac Brunson, was employed as a substitute teacher. RELATED CASES e Dr. Isaac Brunson v. DeKalb County School District, et.al No. 1:19-cv-03819-WMR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Judgement entered January 5“, 2022. e Dr. Isaac Brunson v. DeKalb County School District, et al _ No. 22-10177, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11" Circuit. Judgement entered July 6", 2023.