$9)-$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 fired from McDonnell$-$Douglas Corporation in $1964$ for allegedly discriminatory hiring and firing practices. He protested by illegally blocking the main roads to the plant during a shift change. On July $2,1965,$ a lock$-$in occurred, and Green reapplied for a job but was denied due to his involvement in civil rights protests. He filed a petition with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission $($EEOC$)$ claiming he was denied his position due to his race and activism. The EEOC dismissed the racial discrimination charge, but the case was appealed to the U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed that illegal protests were not protected activities. The Eighth Circuit Court remanded the case to reconsider the racial discrimination charge, and Green appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States $($SCOTUS$),$ which 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$)$: Plaintiffs like Green can seek remedies beyond those provided by agencies like the EEOC. They must present a prima facie case to the court, as the EEOC's findings cannot bar a lawsuit that meets jurisdictional requirements for suing in federal district court. Congress aimed to prevent discriminatory hiring practices, not guarantee jobs. The complainant initially presents a prima facie case for racial discrimination, and the company must prove a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for hiring or firing. In this case, the Court ruled that McDonnell$-$Douglas Corporation was not obligated to rehire Green after his unlawful activities. SCOTUS sent the case back to the federal district court, where Green needed to prove McDonnell Douglas' reasons were a pretext to cover up discriminatory motives. The district court found in favor of McDonnell Douglas, but the corporation appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, losing. In the end, Green won.

Rule of Law Established: The process for pursuing employment discrimination claims involves establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, with the burden of proof shifting to the defendant$/$employer$.$ If the defendant can provide evidence of a legitimate, non$-$discriminatory reason for its actions, the presumption of discrimination is lifted. The plaintiff must then present facts to show an inference of discrimination, either by proving the defendant's explanation is insufficient or by proving that the defendant's actions used one of the listed unlawful discriminatory parameters.

A$)**$An individual need to answer the following question thoroughly and succinctly of the fictional scenario listed below and in a $1-3$ paragraphs the individual has to take us through all three steps of the framework spelled out in the Rule of Law.

Fictional scenario: Pretend that a professor is teaching the course of Employment Law in a face$-$to$-$face format at state University every Thursday night from $6-9$ p$.$m$.$On June $6$th$,$ the professor started arriving one hour early for class in order to hold a protest sign next to the main entrance of the main building where graduate courses are taught. In this hypothetical scenario, the professor$$s sign says, "Free Palestine", and the professor stands out of the way of foot traffic and says nothing. Let's also pretend that the president of the State University asks the professor to stop because it "seems antisemitic" and the professor refuses. After doing this every week all semester, the State University decides to "let me the professor go$"$ because the professor allegedly don't show up for class or perform any of their other job duties. The professor is performing all of their job duties though, and they have a friend who is an assistant dean willing to provide a statement that they were fired for their political actions.