two types of FMLA claims: retaliation and interference. Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2006). III. RETALIATION CLAIM In Count II of his complaint, Bar-tels asserted an FMLA retaliation claim, alleging that SMA terminated him in retaliation for his anticipated use of FMLA protected leave during his wife’s pregnancy. Where the plaintiff espouses a single-motive theory of FMLA retaliation and relies on indirect evidence of the employer’s retaliatory intent, we analyze his claim under the burden shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Hurlbert, 439 F.3d at 1297; see Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227, 1238 (11th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Under that approach, the plaintiff must first
holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework still applies to adea cases postgross 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 the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases