to the Commission’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the Mine Act. See Boich v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 719 F.2d 194, 196 (6th Cir.1983) ; see also Olson, 381 F.3d at 1011. b. Discussion Courts analyze Section 105(c) claims such as Petitioner’s under the Pasular-Robinette framework. Collins v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1388, 1994 WL 683938 (6th Cir.1994) (unpublished per curiam table decision) (citing Sec’y of Labor ex rel. Pasula v. Consolidation Coal Co., 2 F.M.S.H.R.C. 2786, rev’d on other grounds, 663 F.2d 1211 (3d Cir.1981); Sec’y of Labor ex rel. Robinette v. United Castle Coal Co., 3 F.M.S.H.R.C. 803 (1981)); see also E. Assoc. Coal Corp. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 813 F.2d 639, 642 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Under Pasular-Robinette, a miner establishes
holding that the transformative use test is the proper analytical framework to apply to cases such as the one at bar recognizing pasularrobinette as the proper framework for section 105c claims holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework is appropriate for analyzing singlemotive claims but not mixedmotives claims holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework