A manager at an airport rental car station e-mailed a regional manager with allegations of sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor. Although bypassing the immediate supervisor was permitted under the company’s harassment policy, the regional manager testified that he was not happy that she had not dealt directly with her immediate supervisor. The regional manager also said that he liked employees to joke around and that the complaint would “put a muzzle on interaction” between employees. Twenty-eight days after the e-mail was sent, the regional manager and supervisor met with the employee and terminated her. The regional manager testified that he had actually made the termination decision sooner, some 15 days after the e-mail. The employee was told that her termination was due to a downturn in business following 9/11 and her status as the least senior manager at the location. The employee’s requests for a lateral transfer to one of several open positions in other cities was rejected on the grounds that, under company policy, employees with disciplinary warnings in their files were not eligible for transfer. However, although this policy existed, it was regarded as discretionary and not consistently followed. Although it was undisputed that 9/11 had greatly reduced business, this employee was the only manager in the Midwest Region who was laid off. When her former position became open a year later, the woman applied for the position but received no response. She sued. What should the court decide? Why?