Whether colorism discrimination under Title VII and obstruction of justice by withholding EEOC documents constitute actionable legal claims

The issue before the court concerns Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically discrimination as outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, which includes colorism discrimination. Given that Ms. Thomas has a darker skin tone than a lighter-skinned employee, is the discriminatory application of workplace disciplinary policies considered an unlawful practice of colorism discrimination? Furthermore, the doctrine of abuse of process is addressed under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, relating to obstruction of justice. By law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is required to provide the Position Statement and the Notice of Right to Sue. If a convenience store colludes with the EEOC to refuse the production of the Notice of Right to Sue and the Position Statement necessary for filing the current lawsuit, which organization should be held accountable for obstruction of justice? Lastly, does the intentional mislabeling of Ms. Thomas ’s Petition for Rehearing [ECF 12] as a motion constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001,28 U.S.C. § 455, and 28 U.S.C. § 144, reflecting explicit judicial bias from the justices of the Eleventh Circuit? Notably, no reasoning was provided for the erroneous mislabeling of [ECF 12] on February 12th by the Eleventh Circuit. Listed Parties: Ms. Evelyn Thomas Timothy J. McDonald Defense Attorney Charles Poplstein Defense Attorney OuikTrip, Inc ii THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES