Debra-Ann Wellman v. HEB Grocery Company

I. Whether discrimination against an employee because of gender identity, sexual orientation, sex… constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of … sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. II. Whether the employers Respondent/Appellees (HEB) where legally permitted to retaliate, harass, electrocution, tasering, scare tactics, to perform numerous acts of violence by consistently demanding that the Pro Se Petitioner give detailed information about three (3) Federal Lawsuits of court ordered, sealed documents previously filed in Delaware; that the Respondent (et al) had financial investments, partnerships and personal interests in these lawsuits; discovery and legal outcomes processes from the State of Delaware of these sealed Federal documents submitted by the Petitioner. III. Whether retaliation and harassment from filed complaint by the Petitioner on judicial misconduct encompasses a district court judges legal cautious and rational decision-making process capabilities? Factoring in, district court’s posthaste Opinion created by the district court judge was being incautiously executed; only because the Petitioner filed a Judicial Misconduct Complaint, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion was rapidly delivered well before; all of the evidence and scheduling