Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment on claims of employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, and FLSA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th District Court had jurisdiction . over this matter, which presented a plethora of important issues, regarding the : scope of protected oppositional activity under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a); as well as claims for age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; race discrimination, gender discrimination, and . retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII’), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable . accommodation, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.; the claims for failure to promote and wrongful discharge; and failure to pay overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against any individual” with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” on the basis of race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1). Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides “[alll persons” in the United States “the same right” “to make and enforce contracts” as is “enjoyed by white citizens,” including “the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), (b). Title VII bars an employer from retaliating against “any” employee because she has, inter alia, “opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII 42 U.S.C Sections 2000e-3(a). The District Court held that Plaintiffs actions bringing an employee's race, age, gender, retaliation, ADA, and FLSA’s Complaint to the attention of management did not qualify as protected opposition activity. And that Defendants therefore could retaliate against her for taking those actions. The Court based its ruling solely on the basis that there was no genuine issues of material fact and the Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The main issues are whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Plaintiff had no genuine issues of material facts in which she was entitled to relief under Title VII (Age, Race, Gender and Retaliation), FLSA and ADA and the Defendants were entitled to Summary Judgment as well as Judgment for Costs as a matter of law. :