The ADEA prohibits an employer from firing an employee for being old. However, in the wake of the Gross decision, can an employee be fired for being “old and ugly”? Though the question may sound frivolous, an Oklahoma property management company made precisely this argument in a 2013 age discrimination case. Recall that Gross states that the ADEA does not authorize “mixed-motive” age discrimination claims; age must be the deciding (“but-for”) cause of the adverse employment action. Toni Strength, a 53-year-old employee of Kanbar Property Management, was terminated by Kanbar CEO Sukhi Ghuman in 2010. Though Strength was told that her position was being eliminated, this was not true. The EEOC maintains that Strength was fired as a result of her age and filed suit against Kanbar on her behalf. Key to the EEOC’s case was testimony from several individuals who alleged that Ghuman said that he had fired Strength because “she was older and he did not believe she had the ability to meet potential tenants and entertain existing clients after work”; he wanted someone younger and prettier for the position; and she was “old and ugly,” adding “who would want to lease from her.” During summary judgment proceedings, Kanbar argued that these statements do not demonstrate that age was the deciding cause of Ghuman’s actions. Rather, they exhibit mixed motives: “ageism” and “lookism.” Although ageist motives are prohibited by the ADEA, “lookism” is not an actionable charge. Therefore, Kanbar proposed, Ghuman’s alleged statements do not prevent summary judgment in the company’s favor. Has Kanbar presented a sufficient case that the EEOC’s age discrimination claim should not survive summary judgment.