Whether the Burlington Northern standard applies to ADEA retaliatory-harassment-claims

question presented is: 1. Whether the Burlington Northern standard, which this Court has held governs retaliation claims under the ADEA, applies equally to ADEA claims of retaliatory harassment claims. The Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services held that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action, and the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision. 557 U.S. 167 (2009) The question presented is: 2. Whether ADEA retaliation claims require Plaintiff to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, but-for causation or whether the ADEA retali(i) ll ation claims are to be decided under the “motivating factor” test, and in applying the appropriate test, what weight of direct and indirect evidence is required for a Plaintiff to meet that burden of proof. After National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, regarding a continuing violation, the Circuits have taken various approaches to determine what constitutes a discrete and non-discrete act in employment discrimination cases. 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). Also, the Circuits have taken different approaches regarding the requirement of a pattern or practice and what constitutes a pattern and practice. The question presented is: 3. Whether a policy and practice are required in proving a continuing violation and should the Court continue the distinction between discrete and non-discrete acts and if so how are they defined.