Abraham Thomas v. United States Postal Service

Whether this case presents a recurring question concerning the established procedural safeguard afforded to an indigent pro se litigant with PTSD by district court and sixth circuit court far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, required to call for an exercise of this courts Supervisory power.

Whether this case presents a question of exceptional importance concerning the ability of federal employees to seek redress for intentional disparate treatment including systemic retaliation, violation of statutory mandate and procedural abuses following work-related injuries and aggravated injuries, warranting Certiorari review to clarify the judiciary’s role in holding federal agencies accountable to their own regulations and statutory duties.

Whether interfering with approved or protected leave under FMLA, resulting aggravation of the condition that accepted under FMLA, caused extended unpaid absences, constructive suspension, and constructive discharge, impaired the mental ability to pursue pending litigation at federal district court and pending EEO administrative proceedings, constitutes cognizable prejudice sufficient to sustain FMLA interference and retaliation claims and whether the deprivation of job protections in civil service under such circumstances violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause -ii-

Whether federal remedial schemes foreclose a constitutional claim where a federal employee alleges that agency officials threatened him for reporting an aggravated work injury, denying medical assistance, pretextual removal notice for reporting injury coercive agreement to not to file EEO complaint, obstructed/errored injury-reporting and accommodation procedures, denied reassignments and leave protections in retaliation for the injury report, and thereby deprived him of statutory benefits, wages, continued employment, and social security disability without due process.

Whether an agency is entitled to summary judgment on a Title VII retaliation claim when the record contains direct evidence of retaliatory animus—specifically, a manager’s admission that a reassignment was halted because the employee reported a work injury—and the agency violated its own mandatory procedures, thereby creating a conflict with established burden-shifting frameworks.