Sneaky opened a new dress shop catering to college aged students. Sneaky advertised for sales associates but would only hire applicants who had been trained in computer skills in high school. Sally, age 50, was denied employment on the basis that although she was highly skilled in computer usage, she obtained her training after high school. Computer training was not available in Sally's high school nor was it typically available in high schools during that time period. Sally sued for age discrimination. Sneaky denied liability pointing out that his advertisement only referred to computer training. It in no way referenced an age requirement. Sneaky claimed that the fact that all his associates were younger was simply a coincidence. Which of the following is true regarding Sally's claim?

Sneaky should win because he was entitled to require high-school based computer training.

Sneaky should win unless Sally can obtain evidence that Sneaky intentionally used the requirement to discriminate based upon age.

Sally should win under a disparate treatment theory if she can show that the requirement systematically excludes individuals protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Sally should win under a disparate impact theory if she can show that the requirement systematically excludes individuals protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.