Whether a trial court abused its discretion by providing jury instructions that omitted Title VII discrimination claims and applied different causation standards for retaliation and discrimination claims

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, in a Title VII lawsuit, mixed Title VII ; claims, where causation evidence and facts supports the employee’s Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment Claims under Title VII Anti-retaliation provision§ 2000e-3(a), which requires the employee to prove she suffered “objectively tangible” : harm,” and the same causation evidence and facts support the employees Retaliatory Discrimination ; : work assignment claims, based on prior Title VII protected activity and race, under § 2000e-2(a)(1), which do NOT require the employee to prove she suffered “objectively tangible” harm”, did the trial . .court abused its discretion to relay to the jury Title VII Section§ 2000e-3(a) jury instruction ( standard) provisions, and to exclude Title VII § 2000e-2(a)(1), : jury instruction (standard) Provision, which deprived the jury of an opportunity to decide the retaliatory discrimination assignment claims, and to decide, under summary judgment standards, § 2000e-2(a)(1), : with the application of objectively tangible harm standard? ; : VIOLATIONS Whether the employee, Petitioner {Allen} was _ denied a fair impartial jury trial under Title VII, the 5th Amendment, the United States Bill of Rights, District of Columbia Circuit prevailing case law, and the United States Supreme Court Authorities, in Muldrow, when the ‘trial court; ii When, (i) omitted Petitioner’s Title VII retaliatory discrimination assignment claims from the jury . , instruction, for jury deliberation? : When, (ii) omitted Petitioner's, Title VII retaliatory discrimination assignment claims from . the jury (verdict form) for a decision on the : employee’s assignment claims. When, (iii) instructed the jury on Title VII Anti. retaliation provision§ 2000e-3(a), the Petitioner’s : , Retaliatory Hostile work environment claims, requiring the Petitioner to prove “objectively tangible” harm.” ’ When, (iv) did not instruct the jury on Title VIT : Anti-discriminatory provisions § 2000e-2(a)(1), . which does not require the Petitioner to prove “objectively tangible” harm,” When, (v) and decided that the employee's ' temporal proximity evidence {gap} for an inference of causal connection to the employee’s assignment . claims and the Defendants adverse employment ; action was too great, {perhaps} as reasons to omit causation evidence from the jury instruction that supported the employee’s assignment claims? : Issue: For a fair jury trial, does Title VII and the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution due process clause require jury instructions and jury verdict forms relaying to the jury the prevailing law in the circuit on any legal theory that has a basis in the law and the record and was actually argued to the jury?