$9)-$Please read the case summary provided below and the accompanied fiction scenario and answer the question $($A$)$ thoroughly and succinctly.

Facts of the case: Percy Green, a Black civil rights activist, was a mechanic working for the McDonnell$-$Douglas Corporation, a St$.$ Louis$-$based aerospace and aircraft manufacturer. In $1964,$ he was laid off after eight years of employment. Green protested this layoff by saying that the company$$s hiring and firing practices were racially motivated. As part of his protest, he and other members of the Congress on Racial Equality illegally parked their cars to block the main roads to the plant during the morning shift change. On July $2,1965,$ there was a "lock$-$in$",$ in which workers were unable to leave, though the extent of Green$$s involvement in this incident was unclear. On July $25,1965,$ McDonnell$-$Douglas Corporation advertised job openings for qualified mechanics, and Green reapplied, but he was turned down due to his involvement in the protests. Green filed a petition with the EEOC and alleged that he was denied his position because of his race and civil rights activism. The EEOC did not make any finding on the racial bias charge specifically, but it did conclude that Green was denied his job upon reapplication due to his involvement in civil rights protests. Green was not satisfied with the EEOC's decision, so he sued McDonnell$-$Douglas in court. The Federal District Court $($the lowest level court that hears trials$)$ dismissed the racial discrimination charge and ruled that the corporation refused to rehire Green because of his participation in illegal demonstrations, rather than legitimate civil rights issues. The case was then appealed to the U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is the court right above the Federal District Court that had previously heard the case. The Eighth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that illegal protests were not protected activities. However, the Eighth Circuit Court remanded the case to reconsider the racial discrimination charge. This means they sent it back down to the Federal District Court below for examination of the racism claim. Green was not satisfied with this outcome, so he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States $($SCOTUS$),$ and they agreed to hear his case.

Question $($the specific legal question SCOTUS had to analyze$)$: $(1)$ Is a complainant in an employment discrimination suit limited to the charges for which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission $($EEOC$)$ found reasonable cause? In other words, are plaintiffs limited to the remedies that agencies like the EEOC say they can seek?

$(2)$ If so$,$ must the complainant present a prima facie case for racial discrimination? $($The term prima facie describes a fact or presumption that is sufficient to be regarded as true unless otherwise disproved or rebutted$).$

Conclusion $($also known as the holding or the ruling$)$: No$,$ plaintiffs like Green are not limited in their claims, and they can seek remedies above and beyond those that agencies like the EEOC said they can seek. And yes, plaintiffs like Green have to present a prima facie case to the court. Specifically, the Court held that the findings of the EEOC could not bar a lawsuit that meets the jurisdictional requirements for suing in federal district court. The Court also held that Congress meant to prevent discriminatory hiring practices, not guarantee jobs. Therefore, the complainant in an employment discrimination lawsuit carries the initial burden to present a prima facie case for racial discrimination. The burden then shifts to the company to prove that there was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the hiring and$/$or firing practice. In the present case, while Green presented a prima facie case, the Court held that the McDonnell$-$Douglas Corporation was not compelled to rehire him after his deliberately unlawful activities. On remand, meaning that SCOTUS sent the case back down to the federal district court, SCOTUS said Green needed to show the district court that the corporation$$s reasons regarding the unlawful activity were merely a pretext, which is a false explanation of the reasons for an employment decision that an employer offers in an attempt to cover up the true discriminatory motive. On remand, the federal district court found in favor of McDonnell Douglas. That decision was again appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals by the corporation, but the corporation lost. In the end, Green won!

Rule of Law Established: In employment discrimination cases, the framework and procedure for pursuing these claims is as follows: The plaintiff$/$employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant$/$employer$,$ who must then produce evidence of a legitimate, non$-$discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination against the defendant goes away and shifts back to the plaintiff. Th