Qinghua Zhang, et al. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka

Federal Rule of Evidence (F.R.E.) 408, regarding compromise offers and negotiations, aims to encourage settlements by making evidence of settlement discussions inadmissible to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. The question presented is: There is a split among circuits in the admissibility of severance agreements offered to employees at terminations when no claims exist. Does inadmissibility of F.R.E. 408 apply to severance agreements when no claims exist?

It's the trial court's responsibility to provide clear, accurate and unprejudiced jury instructions. In this case, two errors and three plain errors are critical, egregiously wrong, and prejudicial. Failing to educate the jury on applicable laws and pretext misled the jury that complaining about fraud and discrimination including abuse of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) was insubordination or harassment. The jury instructions and answers to the jury’s question overly protected the respondent. The question presented is: A pattern of abuse of discretion of the district court is identified. Errors are significant and prejudicial. Plain errors substantially impact the civil rights of petitioners and affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Considering all errors, shouldn’t they be corrected?