Whether a failure to follow federal rules relating to pay without credible explanation that results in a protected class receiving less pay than other protected classes for the same duties and responsibilities can be enough to create a genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment in a Title VII claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title VII requires that “all personnel actions effecting employees or applicants for employment ... in executive agencies as defined in Title 5 ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a) ) (emphasis added). Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399 (2020) examined that language and its syntax under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a). The Eleventh Circuit subsequently held that Babb v. Wilkie is applicable to Title VII. Babb v. Sec’y, 992 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2021). The questions presented are: 1. Whether a failure to follow federal rules relating to pay without credible explanation that results in a protected class receiving less pay than other protected classes for the same duties and responsibilities can be enough to create a genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment in a Title VII claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a). 2. Whether Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), is applicable to federal employee Title VII claims. Subsidiary questions are whether the language and syntax of Title VII should be interpreted as it was under the ADEA, and whether such language bans retaliation in federal employment. i PARTIES The petitioner is Marecia Bell. The respondent is the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.