Does a petitioner who files an EEOC charge and asserts a claim of retaliatory discrimination for engaging in protected activities under the anti-retaliation Title VII Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a), must show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action based on precedent standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court using the framework 'Whether mistreatment well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination' providing proof of retaliation using 'but for' causation or is a petitioner required to provide proof of retaliation utilizing the more stringent 'Burden Shifting' McDonnell Douglas framework?

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented which has caused a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal application of the law pertaining to Retaliation cases under Title VII Civil Rights of 1964. Does a petitioner who files an EEOC charge and asserts a claim of retaliatory discrimination for engaging in protected activities under the anti-retaliation Title VII Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a), must show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action based on precedent standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court using the framework “Whether mistreatment well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination” providing proof of retaliation using “but for’ causation or is a petitioner required to provide proof of retaliation utilizing the more stringent “Burden Shifting” McDonnell Douglas framework? 1