Under the burden-shifting framework that governs Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a 'retaliatory intent' as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of 'retaliatory intent' part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects whistleblowers who report financial wrongdoing at publicly traded companies. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. When a whistleblower invokes the Act and claims he was fired because of his report, his claim is “governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.” 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C). Under that incorporated framework, a whistleblowing employee meets his burden by showing that his protected activity “was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.” 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B)Gii). If the employee meets that burden, the employer can prevail only if it “demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior.” Jd. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv). The Question Presented is: Under the burden-shifting framework that governs Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of “retaliatory intent” part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?