I.
In Burrage U. United States, 571 U.S. 204
(2014), this Court explained that a "but-for"
cause is merely one cause, perhaps among
several, which is the straw that broke the
camel's
back"
and, in June, this Court
reiterated in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.
Ct. 1731 (2020), that "but-for" cause is not sole
cause and may be one of many causes for an
adverse employment action. Here, the question
presented to the Court is whether the lower
court erred in adopting what is, in essence, a
"sole cause" standard, in direct conflict with the
Court's holdings in Burrage and Bostock.

II.
Although the Fourth Circuit purported to apply
a "but-for" causation standard to Petitioner's
FMLA claim, there is clear disarray among
circuit courts regarding the correct standard.
Because
of confusion
within the circuits,
deepened by
the Department
of Labor's
adoption of a "negative factor" regulation, the
question
presented is
whether
the correct
causation standard is b
but-for,
motivating
factor, or negative factor.

Whether the lower court erred in adopting a 'sole cause' standard for FMLA retaliation claims, in direct conflict with this Court's holdings in Burrage and Bostock