James Tolle v. Rockwell Collins Control Technologies, Inc., dba Rockwell Collins, Inc., dba United Technologies Corporation, et al.

I. Without any indication from the District Court’s Opinion that it found a defect in Plaintiff’s pleadings or factual allegations of his Complaint, the District Court failed to follow the pleading standards required by this Court, including multiple instances of ignoring or refusing to provide a presumption of truth to Plaintiff’s multiple, detailed factual allegations and related references to evidence from public sources which support Plaintiff’s claims. The defiance of the lower court to respect this Court’s precedents and follow the pleading standards of this Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court without comment, raises the following questions concerning the District Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and dismissal. a) Did the District Court err in finding, without explanation, that “there is no indication that the Gay Pride flag is associated with such animus” (Memorandum Opinion, Appendix A, note 4) even though the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint provide evidence of animus if taken as true during a Rule 12(b)(6) review? b) Did the District Court defy this Court’s precedent in Neitzke v. William, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) when it dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint “based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations” by ignoring Plaintiff’s ample factual allegations showing there is some indication that the Gay Pride flag is associated with animus towards Christians in order to find "there is no indication that the Gay Pride flag is associated with such animus” (Memorandum Opinion, Appendix A, note 4)? c) Did the District Court err by finding “nor did [the flag]...unreasonably interfere with plaintiff’s work performance” (Memorandum Opinion, Appendix A, p. 8) under Rule 12(b)(6) when Plaintiffs Complaint did include factual allegations which, if taken as true,