Where Respondent [City Government] and its individual policymaking authorities violate the Appellant's Constitutional rights under 14th Amendment per Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1981 AND/OR 1983

Question Presented Where Respondent [City Government] and its individual policymaking authorities violate the Appellant’s Constitutional rights under 14° Amendment per Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1981 AND/OR 1983, in which the suspected officials intentionally altered the Appellant’s employee records [AT HR OFFICE] against the provisions of the City’s Civil Service Regulations [Policymaker and HR Manager confessed UNDER OATH to be the one that intentionally altered one of the records without ANY official justification WHATSOEVER], and the Respondent and individual policymaking authorities even used the intentionally altered records to deny the Appellant promotional opportunities twice within 6 months, and an independent Forensics Expert’s Official Opinion [PAED Docket# 136-1] states that there is a strong indication of fraud on the employee records. Why should the Court ignore Forensics Expert’s Official Opinion in its ruling? 1. This is of national importance regarding age-long racial discrimination matters, especially at Civil Service places of employment in America. AND THAT APPROVED OVERTIME HOURS WORKED BY AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE PART OF EMPLOYEE’S WORK EXPERIENCE AND SHOULD BE CREDITED AS TIME COMPLETED FOR PROBATIONARY PERIOD. 2. This would surely resolve conflicts among Federal Appellate Courts on who the policymaker is regarding litigations against government, government agencies, and/or government officials, per egregious civil rights violations, retaliations, as well as patterns and practice of racial discrimination, ESPECIALLY SUCH Page 3 of 12 DONE INTENTIONALLY AGAINST MILITARY VETERANS THAT SERVED THE NATION WITH HONORABLE DISCHARGE, LET ALONE THOSE LIVING WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES LIKE THE PETITIONER. 3. This would also correct the error of PAED District Court that completely ignored the Forensics Expert’s Official Opinion in this matter. Page 4 of 12