Whether the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework remains a viable standard for analyzing employment discrimination claims under Title VII

No question identified. : To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioner Julio Licinio respectfully requests an extension of time of 60 days to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court up to and including November 14, 2025. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is Licinio v. New York, which is unreported but is available at 2025 WL 1693108 (2d Cir. June 17, 2025) (attached as Exhibit 1). Petitioner did not seek rehearing. This means a Petition is presently due on September 15, 2025. This application for an extension of time is filed more than ten days prior to that date. JURISDICTION This case arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him in his employment and that the lower courts improperly applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test in granting summary judgment against him. Exhibit 1, slip op. 3-6. This Court has jurisdiction over a timely filed petition for writ of certiorari in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254. REASONS FOR GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Good cause exists for the requested extension. This case presents an important question about the continuing viability of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Additionally, Petitioner’s undersigned Counsel of Record was only recently retained on September 3, 2025, and requires extra time to prepare the Petition. Given undersigned counsel’s pending workload, including motions for summary judgment in federal and state court and other case responsibilities including discovery and settlement negotiations, additional time would greatly assist counsel in preparing an effective petition in this case. This is Petitioner’s first request for an extension of time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that the Court grant an extension of 60 days, up to and including November 14, 2025, within which to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. DATED: September 4, 2025. Respectfully submitted, Ze ROPER Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 916.503.9045 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of this application was served via email and U.S. Mail to counsel listed below in accordance with Supreme Court Rules 22.2 and 29.3: Alexandria Twinem New York State Office of the Attorney General Division of Appeals & Opinions The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 518.776.2042 Attorney for Respondents DATED: September 4, 2025. Respectfully submitted, Gla Vlog E. ROPER Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 916.503.9045 Exhibit 1 Case: 24-2564, 06/17/2025, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 1 of 6 24-2564-cv Licinio v. New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL