Whether the Faragher and Ellerth 'supervisor' liability rule applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work

question presented is: Whether, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth “supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or, as the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim. The following questions are presented. , 1. Did the Fifth Circuit err in its affirmation of the Districts Court reading of Rule 12(b)(6) given that five other Circuits read the rule liberally to allow for pro se litigants in similar proceedings, similar to the one alleged by Petitioner here? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit Court err in its interpretation of Sanchez v. Chevron N. Am. Expl. & Prod. Co., No. 20-30783, 2021 WL 5513509, at *5 (5th Cir. 2021) whereafter it found that the Petitioners claim for discrimination was deficient due to the alleged failure to establish causation by protected characteristics such as race, national origin, or sex? 3. Was the Fifth Circuits Court dismissal of the Petitioner’s promissory estoppel ; claim on the basis of alleged evidential inadequancies because her attached exhibit refutes the existence of any such promise and consequently was their interpretation and application of Esty v. Beal Bank S.S.B., 298 S.W.3d 280, 305 (Tex. App. Dallas 2009, no pet) proper? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit Courts decision take into account the applicability of the principles enunciated in Maetta Vance v Ball State University 570 US.421 (more) 133 ; S.Ct.2434;186 L.Ed.2d 565;2013 U.S LEXIS 4703; 81US that were entirely relevant and 2 applicable to the Petitioners Claim against her supervisor but left entirely unaddressed and as such does their failure to do so constitute an error that prejudices the Petitioners right to be heard? | TABLE OF CONTENT