Whether a state agency's alleged discriminatory hiring practices and fabricated declination letter violate New York's Civil Service Law Section 61 and constitute actionable employment discrimination

No question identified. : To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In accordance with this Court’s Rules 13.5, 22, 30.2, and 30.3, Applicant Weili Cao-Bossa respectfully requests that the time to file its petition for a writ of certiorari be extended for 60 days, March 20, 2024. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on March 7, 2023 and denied the request for rehearing en banc on October 20, 2023. Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on Jan 18, 2024. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). This request is unopposed. Background This case presents an important question regarding rule 56: Is default summary judgment appropriate if genuine issues, negligent misrepresentation, if not fraudulent, and even miscalculation of limit of statute exist in the summary judgment? The 24 circuit court agrees that summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no genuine issues existing in summary judgment. It assumes the facts are undisputed claiming that I failed to dispute in detail and the District Court independently ensured that the material facts identified by NYSDOL were supported by the record. I failed to file the substantive response before the due date due to miscommunication with court clerk and my limited legal knowledge as a pro se plaintiff. My opposition to NYSDOL’s summary judgment based on exceeding the page limit has never meant to be the formal response. I clearly expressed the intention to file formal or substantive response to dispute material facts in that motion. The formal response was completed on time and was ready to file with the court before the due date. In both my appeal brief and request for rehearing en banc, I have provided clear evidence showing that genuine issues exist in summary judgment. Although NY District court independently ensured that material facts in NYSDOL’s summary judgment were supported by records, I have provided evidence to prove they were incomplete and incorrect. The incomplete and incorrect records provided by NY state attorney general result in at least negligent misrepresentation, if not fraudulent. They resulted in the miscalculation of limit of statute as well. I am currently a senior accountant with a Certified Professional Accountant (CPA) license and an Enrolled Agent (EA) certificate. I was a 44-year-old potential CPA back in 2016 when the case started. I passed both accounting and auditing civil service exams with score 90 and ranking 14. As the third on the acceptance list of a grade 18 position in Finance Department of the DOL, I was claimed that I was not qualified for a position more than entering debits and credits, and Ms. Elfeldt, director of the finance, requested me to decline the position. The internal email between Ms. Elfeldt and the hiring manager of the grade 18 position revealed in Discovery showed that they violated NYS Rule of Three scienter. They wanted to and did hire the 4» on the acceptance list, Phoebe Helou, who had a score 85. Although back then I did not know the exact reason why Mrs. Elfeldt drew such a discriminatory conclusion, I refused to decline with an email saying I would like to welcome the challenge if given the chance the same day, July 13, 2016. I received the confirmation of declination letter the next day. Instead of changing discriminatory stereotype of me and retrieving the fabricated confirmation of declination letter, when challenged, Ms. Elfeldt, arranged my employment with a grade 14 accounting 3 position from which I was terminated due to so-claimed incompetence with 2 very negative evaluations. She “successfully” proved that I was not only not qualified for the grade 18 position, but even not for a grade 14 position. She must forget that I was barred to be on the eligible list of any other permanent position with the same agency at the same location per the confirmation of fabricated declination letter. The emplo