Whether this Court's rationale in Babb applies to federal-sector Title VII claims; and if so whether the McDonnell-Douglas framework has been abrogated by Babb; and if so whether the proper Title VII framework is the EEOC federal-sector regulations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Babb (2020), this Court held that the plain meaning of the statutory language of ADEA’s ~ federal-sector provision mandates liability if a decision-making process is not “made free from any . discrimination based on age.” Because Title VII’s ; federal-sector provision contains the same statutory language at issue in Babb, some circuits state the McDonnell-Douglas framework no longer applies to federal-sector claims. Other circuits, in contrast to Babb’s “made free from any” standard, dismiss Title VII claims, if an agency asserts they had an “honest belief” in their stated reasoning even if mistaken or contrary to evidence before the agency. 1. Whether this Court’s rationale in Babb applies to federal-sector Title VII claims; and if so whether the McDonnell-Douglas framework has been" abrogated by Babb; and if so whether the proper Title VII framework is the EEOC federal-sector regulations. : 2. Whether Title VII protects federal-sector employees from actions “motivated by” retaliation. 38. Whether the “honest belief’ rule used in some circuits to dismiss Title VII claims is : ; impermissible deference to agency, in conflict with several of this Court’s holdings; and if so whether this Court’s instructions in Kisor should be used to evaluate the reasonableness and legitimacy of ; discriminatory agency actions; and if so whether . speculation, guidance memos or employee opinion letters are entitled to deference when taking agency : ‘ action against regulated parties like Petitioner. i o