With regards to EEOC Reasonable Charge Determinations issued pursuant to the EEOC investigation conducted, is the Reasonable Cause Determination automatically admissible or otherwise relevant enough to preclude summary judgment and dismissal by said evidence being deemed inadmissible or ignored through the judge's discretion for those parties whose claims failed EEOC conciliation in a jury or judge-tried case under Federal Rules of Evidence 403?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . The anti-discrimination investigatory work and laws enforced by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter “EEOC’”) are vital to . this country and its citizen’s workplace civil rights in all 50 states. However, in some parts of this country “Reasonable Cause Determinations” issued by EEOC are deemed inadmissible at trial or at the summary judgment pretrial stage. In other parts of this country’s circuits, those EEOC Reasonable Cause Determinations are automatically admissible, thereby precluding dismissal at the summary judgment stage or from being reviewed by a jury or judge in a bench trial. . This inadmissible of the EEOC cause determination is stripped from the record by way of a motion in limine or through section 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. To the citizens in the former parts of the country and those circuits that prescribe to “discretionary ' admission” or inadmissible for those cause determination, those citizens with valid charges of discrimination proven through the investigation of EEOC are not given fair consideration and have their complaints dismissed or subject to that vital evidence being deemed inadmissible at the trial or summary judgment stage Question 1: With regards to EEOC Reasonable Charge Determinations issued pursuant to the EEOC investigation conducted, is the Reasonable Cause Determination automatically admissible or otherwise relevant enough to preclude summary judgment and dismissal by said evidence being deemed inadmissible or ignored through the judge’s discretion for those parties whose claims failed EEOC conciliation in a jury or judge-tried case under Federal Rules of Evidence 403? Under the Burden Shifting requirement for Retaliation for Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended a charging party must first present a “prima facie case” by showing 1) she is in the protected class of citizens, 2) she engaged in a protected activity, and 3) the employer (Respondent) took an adverse action as a result of that protected activity. Once a charging party or Petitioner has presented a prima facie case, the employer has an opportunity to provide a legitimate, valid nondiscriminatory reason for taking the adverse action. The burden at the final stage in retaliation under Title VII, then shifts back to the charging party or Petitioner to show that the stated reasons put forth by the employer are pretextual or a cover-up for discriminatory or illegal retaliatory reasons. Often in a pretrial motion for summary judgment, the final question of “pretext” is answered by the judge pursuant to a motion for dismissal at summary judgment. Question 2: With regards to the words “valid nondiscriminatory” and “pretext” (material fact), what is the adequate definition or standard for evidence to be used where a prima facie case of retaliation has been put forth? Should the final stage of retaliation regarding “pretext” be resolved by the fact finders Gury or judge) following a trial either jury or bench, thereby precluding summary judgment? L