Whether Title VII's retaliation provision requires but-for causation or mixed motive

QUESTION PRESENTED 1). Whether Title VII's retaliation provision and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (1e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action). 2). Is it the duty of the Court or the jury to decide whether undisputed conduct activity" for reporting " filing employment discrimination complaint, “discrimination harassment," within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly in light of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., 555 U.S. 271 (2009)? 2) Does Title VII protect employee from employer’s discrimination harassment by giving a negative statement (i.e...“words of threat”: getting rid of employee ahead of . Employment proficiency plan “ EPP “is an adverse employment action in a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . 3). Whether the continuation of time driven events elapse between the protected activity and the adverse employment action ( demotion ) disproves the causal connection element of a prima facie case in a retaliation claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a). (The First Circuit’s decision conflicted with the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits’ decisions on the same issue). 4). Whether the discovery rule is applicable in Title VII cases. 5). Under what circumstances is an employer liable under federal anti-discrimination laws based on a subordinate’s discriminatory animus, where the person(s) who actually made the adverse employment decision ii admittedly harbored no _ discriminatory motive toward the impacted employee.