any unlawful practice.” To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under both federal and state law, Lindsey must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) CPUD subjected him to an adverse employment action; and (3) “a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). If Lindsey establishes these three elements, the burden shifts to CPUD to articulate its legitimate reasons for the adverse employment action. Id. If CPUD makes that articulation, Lindsey then has the burden, of showing that CPUD’s stated reasons are mere “pretext for a discriminatory motive.” Id. (citation omitted); see Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1090-94 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 1. Lindsey’s Prima Facie Case CPUD does not
holding that even though oregon courts do not follow the burdenshifting approach the oregon rule is not outcomedeterminative so the burdenshifting framework is appropriate in the ninth circuit holding that the district court erred when it relied on neuschafer for the proposition that dismissal of mixed habeas petitions is not the rule in the ninth circuit  holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions recognizing that this test applies in every federal circuit save the fourth and the ninth