Please explain clearly

Samuel Evans, who is black, worked as a food server in some of the finest restaurants in Chicago for over twenty years. He and his wife moved to Burmingham, Alabama after his wife was relocated for her job. Samuel applied to work at the Four Diamond Steakhouse (FDS), one of the best eating establishments in Burmingham.FDS had over 30 employees and did business in several states.Samuel interviewed with Melinda Chaney, the restaurant manager, who hired him on the spot. Chaney was so impressed with Samuel that when she hired him, she told him that he was being hired on a "permanent" basis. Samuel was the first black server ever hired by FDS.

Shortly after Samuel began working at FDS, several of the white customers complained to Chaney about having a black server and said that they only wanted white workers serving their food. Chaney apologized to Samuel for the attitude of these customers, but told him that if FDS offended its customers, it would go out of business. Chaney said that she would keep Samuel as a server, but he would be restricted as to which customers he could serve. Accordingly, Chaney put a plaque on the side of the door to the back room in the restaurant which said "NO BLACK SERVERS." Customers who wanted white servers could be asked to be seated in that room. Samuel was instructed that he was not to enter that room or serve any of the customers seated there. Samuel was, however, allowed to serve customers seated in any other part of the restaurant.

This new policy impacted, among other things, the amount of tips that Samuel earned. Not only was Samuel restricted in the customers he could serve, but the back room contained the "group" table for parties of eight people or more. Parties at the "group" table were automatically charged an 18% tip.There was no similar table in the area where Samuel was allowed to serve.

Nine months after he was hired, Samuel filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming that he was being subjected to racial discrimination. Within five days after learning that Samuel had filed a complaint with the EEOC, FDS fired him, claiming that Samuel had been rude to a customer. Samuel was replaced with a white employee.

Samuel obtained a right to sue letter from the EEOC and thereafter filed a lawsuit against FDS, alleging that (1) it had violated his rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, (2) he had been wrongfully discharged because he was told that his employment would be permanent, (3) he had been wrongfully discharged because he was fired in retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC, and (4) FDS' claim that he had been rude to a customer was a pretext to cover up the real reason for his firing. FDS defended, asserting that (1) Samuel was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time, (2) the restriction on which customers he could serve was a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification ("BFOQ") because FDS would not be able to stay in business if it lost its customers, and (3) even if Samuel's race played a role in his termination, FDS would have made the same decision to fire him because Samuel was rude to a customer.

1. DISCUSS THE LIKELY RESULT OF SAMUEL'S LAWSUIT AGAINST FDS. BE SURE TO DISCUSS THOROUGHLY ALL OF SAMUEL'S POTENTIAL CLAIMS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THOSE CLAIMS, HOW THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CASE APPLY TO THAT LAW, AS WELL AS EACH OF FDS'S POTENTIAL DEFENSES AND HOW THE FACTS APPLY TO THOSE DEFENSES. [50 points]
2. WHAT ARE SAMUEL'S POTENTIAL REMEDIES IF HE WINS?