Did the Appellate Court improperly weigh evidence and dismiss claims by overlooking critical facts and testimony in a civil procedure context?

1. Did the Appellate Court properly construe all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, or did it improperly weigh in favor of the Appellee by overlooking and disregarding critical facts, evidence, as well as the contradicting testimony by Ms. Lense that directly disputes and discredits all the Appellee ’s claims — evidence that would have supported the Petitioner ’s position. 1 1 Lead "investigator" John McCormick admitted under testimony that he conducted no actual investigation beyond taking a statement from Ms. Lense. He never contacted or spoke with Mr. Blockhus, nor did he attempt to verify any of Ms. Lense ’s claims before reaching his socalled "conclusions." Lense ’s own testimony directly contradicted her claims of harassment, as she admitted under oath that she and Mr. Blockhus were on "friendly terms " during the time frame in which she alleged the harassment occurred. Given these deficiencies, the evidence lacked the reliability necessary to support a ruling in favor of the Appellee. Furthermore, this case involved multiple disputed facts, all of which were material to its outcome —including Ms. Lense ’s own testimony that her primary concern was losing her job and that she had no reason to report Mr. Blockhus until she learned that she was being reported to the company for harassment. These disputes warranted a more thorough review, as they were central to assessing the merits of the case. ii 2. Did the Appellate Court dismiss the FMLA claims prematurely without thoroughly analyzing the Petitioner ’s claims of pretext, particularly given the suspicious timing as well as chain of events? Specifically, did the court overlook United ’s actions that included shortening the time allotted for the Petitioner to apply for FMLA leave —contrary to their own policies —and repeatedly contacting Mr. Blockhus while on his approved FMLA leave, which violated FMLA protections. Additionally, did the court fail to recognize United ’s agreement to postpone any investigation until after Mr. Blockhus ’s FMLA leave, only to terminate him as soon as he exercised his FMLA rights, suggesting possible unlawful interference with his statutory entitlements by Junior management? 2 2 The Petitioner was granted FMLA leave for the block period of February 8, 2021, to April 1, 2021, to undergo treatment for a serious disability that was exacerbated by the extreme stress caused by the false accusations made by Ms. Lense. iii 3. Did the Appellate Court err in admitting text messages submitted by the defense that lacked proper authentication, including missing phone numbers, year, and corroborating evidence, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a)? The court further compounded this issue by improperly adding the year to the text evidence —despite its absence —and assuming facts that were neither proven nor supported, contravening established legal standards. Additionally, did the court engage in selective evidence analysis by disregarding harassing communications from Lense to Blockhus, which contained phone numbers, dates, and corroborating evidence, and were acknowledged by Lense as originating from her phone and email? 3 3 Ms. Lense initial complaint to United was that she felt her job security was threatened but then later submitted what appeared to be text messages from months earlier of an unknown year. iv STATEMENT OF