Harold Jean-Baptiste v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

Whether inexcusable error by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia to issue an Order that was unclear with judicial errors that is confusing to which parties the order is for, referencing petitioner in­ stead of the defendant of the case. The Order for Sum­ mary Affirmance referencing the petitioner’s claims when the petitioner never requested it, the petitioner’s motion was for opposition to Summary Affirmance re­ quested by the defendant. The Order by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia is confusing and inexcusable judicial error. The inexcusable judicial error of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia is a judicial mistake and created a confusion of the Order to decipher the correct judgement of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia ruling for Summary Affirmance for the petitioner when the motion from the petitioner from the U.S. Court of Appeals was opposition to Summary Affir­ mance. The U.S. Court of Appeals made an error and also applied the law incorrectly by ignoring the fact the U.S. District Court dismissing the case without preju­ dice incorrectly on the time frame to file EEOC claims, because less than 90 days was passed since the ‘right to sue letter’ was issued on February 14, 2022 by EEOC. According to Title VII, the American Disability Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a per­ son aggrieved under Title VTI who seeks to file a civil action must do so within ninety days from receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue notice, the original case was