Did the lower courts err in misapplying the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) waiver of standards denying Petitioners FMLA, due to a concealed missrepresented matter stemming from employer retaliation?

Petitioners 14th amendment Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law were violated when Tulane terminated employee alleging leave without permission and misuse of company card, against petitioner Manuel Tijerino Pro Se in “bad faith ” and proceeded to mislead the courts into miss-applying the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) waiver of standards blocking Petitioner ’s FMLA with the alleged misconduct. Furthermore, petitioner ’s attorney neglected and refused to fulfill his obligations to challenge and rebut legal presumption of misconduct and subsequently failed to rectify this oversight in a timely manner, whereby denying Petitioner the opportunity to explain the dispositive factor of alleged misconduct blocking Petitioner from receiving FMLA which would have changed the outcome of the case. FMLA section 105 and section 825.220 prohibits FMLA retaliation and petitioners mix-use card provided protection via various Consumer Laws required by law, such as the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) regulation Z, Tile 15 USC Ch. 50 Consumer Product Warranties 2301 (10) and Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E. Respondent alleging misconduct concealed the fact that they withdrew petitioners ’ won merchant dispute and then miss-represented it as an invalid fraud dispute undone by the bank to allege that the petitioner was misusing the company funds, rather than his legally obtained refund. As such rather than the case defended and won by preponderance of the evidence the case was undefended and lost through uncontroverted material evidence. QUESTION1. Did the lower courts err in misapplying the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) waiver of standards denying Petitioners FMLA, due to a concealed missrepresented matter stemming from employer retaliation? 1