Does a Pro Se Title VII Plaintiff show 'Due Diligence' when administrative remedies are mishandled by the EEOC, and should courts consider arguments introducing false evidence as fraud?

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the precondition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring employees to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before commencing an action in court is not jurisdictional. Rather, the charge-filing requirement is a “nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule, ” The Respondent however understands that this does not negate the requirement of filing a complaint with the EEOC or with a local employment agency to meet administrative requirements to bring suit. However, Justice Ginsburg wrote in a unanimous opinion. “[A] rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional, and Title VH’s charge-filing requirement fits that bill, ” the Court ruled. Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18'525. Also long ago, the Supreme Court also has made clear that deliberate deception of a court by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with "rudimentary demands of justice." Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 112 (1935). As is relevant here, this case brings forth the matter as to what extremes does a litigant need to show due diligence in meeting administrative requirements and what degree of lawlessness is the court willing to allow for the submission of false evidence that has pursued the court to make judgment in one’s favor. The questions present are: 1. Does a Pro Se Title VII Plaintiff not show “Due Diligence ” when attempts to exhaust administrative remedies are ignored and mis handled by the EEOC and/or a local employment agency in bringing forth a Title VII suit. 2. Should arguments raised for the first time in a response brief to an amended complaint that introduces false evidence through bad faith, deception and deflection which has pursued a court to rule in one ’s favor be considered fraud of the court. 3. Should Appellate Courts identify bias of a District Court when a Pro Se litigant ensuring Fairness and Impartiality. 4. Should attempts to address employment matters start and end with an employer in showing “Due Diligence ” when discovering facts of a claim.