The Pair O' Dice Casino [which employs six hundred forty full-time workers] in Laughlin, Nevada, refuses to hire female bouncers on the grounds that they are insufficiently strong and intimidating enough to effectively perform the job. During the trial in U.S. District Court for gender discrimination brought by a group of women denied jobs as bouncers at the casino (the EEOC had issued a Right to Sue letter after concluding that there was insufficient evidence supporting the charge), the general manager, Clayton Tyson, defended the policy. Tyson testified that "everyone in the world can tell, simply by looking, that the physical capability of women is less imposing than that of men." What theory of liability are the plaintiffs relying upon? What kind of defense is the casino asserting? What additional evidence, if any, could the casino offer to bolster its defense? What importance could the court give to the EEOC’s failure to find sufficient evidence supporting the charge (i.e., the standard of judicial review)? Finally, if a jury finds in favor of the women is it likely that they will be awarded punitive damages.