I need help with chapter exercise #2 from chapters 3 and 4 and it has to be IRAC method answer.

3. Motion for a New Trial. Aida's case against the landlords went to trial. During voir dire, jurors were asked if any of them or their family members had been evicted from their rental home. One juror made no response, but it was later discovered that the juror's brother was served with a no-cause eviction notice last year. When the trial court jury returned a verdict for Aida, the landlords moved for a new trial on the ground that the juror had violated his oath and failed to disclose pertinent information during voir dire. In opposing the motion, Aida submitted an affidavit signed by the juror in which the juror swore that he had not answered the question because he had not heard it and that his brother's eviction had not influenced his judgment in the case. Did the juror's failure to hear the question about the eviction constitute juror misconduct to the extent that the landlord's motion for a new trial should be granted? 4. Equal Protection. Aida's legal troubles with the landlords and the moving company were now behind her. She decided to visit her folks back in the east coast. During dinner one day, she learned from her mother about something troubling at her aunt's workplace. Aida's aunt, Irma, age forty-nine, had worked for a government-owned and -operated radio and television station in Washington DC for over a decade when, without any prior notice, she was suddenly transferred from her television program to a position in radio. Her replacement in the television program was a twenty-eight-year-old woman with less experience. Mozer, the administrator of the television channel, explained to a newspaper reporter that Irma was removed because they needed new faces to appeal to a wider and younger audience. Mozer believed Irma's replacement would bring the change they were looking for. Aida then met with aunt Irma and encouraged her to sue Mozer. Irma then hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit against the station alleging in part that the transfer discriminated against her on the basis of age and therefore violated her rights under the equal protection clause. Mozer claimed that the transfer was for the purpose of maximizing viewership for the public television channel and therefore was a permissible action. Will the court agree with Mozer that the station did not violate Irma's right to equal protection? (In answer this question, disregard the fact that Irma could have sued the station under a federal law prohibiting age discrimination in employment. She based her claim only on the equal protection clause. Just analyze the equal protection issue.)