In a response to a help wanted ad, Jane Armstrong a 38 year old women applies for a job as a cab driver at Hacker Cab Company. She has a valid drivers license and has driven extensively but not for pay for 20 years. She is a vegetarian and a Capricorn. After a brief interview, at which all these facts emerge, she is rejected by Tip Oneil, Hackers president. Armstrong comes to you for legal counsel. You do some investigation. The first call you make is to O'Neill, who admits that the job is still open but explains that he rejected Armstrong because "Capricorns make lousy drivers; besides shes too old to adjust to the rigors of cab driving, especially since she doesn't eat meat". When asked whether Armstrongs gender played a part in the decision O'Neill replied,"He'' no. Some of my best friends are women. I don't care if my brother marries one. Har, har" A "winshield survery" of the hacker cab company at a shift changing time reveals an almost total absence of women drivers. It is common knowledge that there is a heavy turnover in the cab driving business?

How would you analyze this case based on the law of individual desparate treamtment discrimination as you understand it?