Whether the Fourth Circuit improperly conflates the prima facie stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework with the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason stage by imposing an evidentiary threshold that effectively requires plaintiffs to disprove the employer's proffered reason at the initial stage, thereby creating a circuit split and departing from this Court's precedent

No question identified. : 2. The Fourth Circuit entered its judgment on June 30, 2023. Copies of the Fourth Circuit’s amended opinion! and judgment order are attached as Exhibits A and B. The Estate filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc on July 14, 2023, and the Fourth Circuit denied the Petition on July 28, 2023. The Fourth Circuit’s Order denying The Estate’s Petition is attached as Exhibit C. As such, unless extended, the time to file a petition for certiorari will expire on October 26, 2023. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, this application is being filed more than ten days before a petition for certiorari would otherwise be due. The jurisdiction of this Court will be invoked under 28 U.S.C.§ 1254(1). 3. This case raises two exceptionally important federal issues. 4. First, it raises the question of whether the Fourth Circuit’s longstanding federal employment law jurisprudence regarding the strict evidentiary threshold it requires for a plaintiff to show a “prima facie” case of employment discrimination under the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry improperly imports the later stages of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry into its analysis. Specifically, the issue is whether the Fourth Circuit’s McDonnell Doughlas rule of law improperly conflates the “employer’s legitimate expectations” prong of the prima facie case test (for the first step of the McDonnell Doughlas inquiry) with the second and third McDonnell ‘On July 5, 2023, the Fourth Circuit entered an order amending its published opinion in this case in order to Douglas steps in situations where, as here, the employer’s reason for terminating an employee is the same reason for saying the employee is not meeting expectations. 5. The Estate contends that the Fourth Circuit’s jurisprudence does indeed improperly merge the McDonnell Douglas steps together and, in this regard, is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with this Court’s precedents, including McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983), and St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). 6. The Fourth Circuit’s jurisprudence also conflicts with Circuit precedents from at least the Sixth and Eighth Circuits such that plaintiffs in states such as Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina are necessarily subject to a harsher standard of proof for the first stage of the McDonnell Doughlas inquiry than those in states such as Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Nebraska. Even District Courts in the Fourth Circuit have taken notice of the variance between the Fourth Circuit’s strict rule of law on this issue and the relaxed rules of law applied in other Circuits, Cupples v. AmSan, LLC d/b/a Maintenance Supply Cop. 2007 WL 1075178 at *6 (W.D. N.C. Mar. 30, 2007). In short, the Fourth Circuit’s rule of law improperly sets the bar too high for plaintiffs to prove an initial prima facie case of employment discrimination under federal law. 7. Second, this case involves the question of whether Eva Palmer, a former art professor at Liberty University, Inc. who was not required to teach any religious topics or Bible study classes as part of her job duties at the University, is a “minister” under the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception.” Two members of the Fourth Circuit panel below wrote concurrences sharply disagreeing on this specific issue, and its application would have been dispositive for Judge Richardson. This issue has been repeatedly bedeviling lower courts in the wake of this Court’s decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S.Ct. 2014 (2020) and is an issue of exceptional importance. 8. Given the complexity of the issues in this case and given undersigned counsel’s professional obligations in other matters”, the Estate respectfully requests a 36-day extension of time, up to and including Friday, December 1, 2023, to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. WHEREFORE, for the