The plaintiff in this case is a female who had worked in various capacities for a hotel chain, including temporary stints as a front desk $$guest service representative.$$ Her performance was praised by several different supervisors. She was eventually offered a full$-$time position as a daytime front desk person. The woman was not interviewed prior to the offer. However, when the Director of Operations saw her working at the front desk several weeks later, she told the hotel manager that she was not sure that the woman was a "good fit" for the front desk job. She said that the plaintiff, who is somewhat masculine in appearance; prefers to wear loose$-$fitting clothing, including men's button$-$down shirts and slacks; avoids makeup; and wears her hair short $$lacked the $$Midwestern girl look.$$ The Director of Operations ordered that the woman be returned to a night clerk position, a move that was resisted by the hotel manager. Around this time, the hotel chain decided that hiring for the front desk position would require a second interview and it purchased video equipment enabling top managers to see applicants before extending offers. After she had been on the job for about a month, the woman was informed that a second interview would be required in order to "confirm$/$endorse$"$ her A shift position. The woman was aware of what had been said about her appearance. She told the Director of Operations that she believed a second interview was being required only because she lacked the "Midwestern girl look" and she questioned whether the interview was lawful. The woman was invited to share her views about new policies at the hotel and she suggested that some of them might have contributed to a drop in revenue at the hotel. The woman was terminated three days later because she had "thwarted the proposed interview procedure" and exhibited "hostility toward $...$ recent policies." $[$In the course of litigation, $$poor job performance$$ was cited as an additional basis for termination