And no, gender and attractiveness are obviously not inseperably connected, or any other thing that is only possible because a person happens to have a certain gender, for that matter. If I stand on top of my office building and pee on the head of a colleague I don't like, they don't fire me because only as a man, having a penis, I am able to aim that accurately. They fire me for my misconduct. While the woman who has fired hasn't partaken in any misconduct whatsoever, the legal groundwork in her state does not seem to sepparate between firing someone for misbehaving, or firing them just because their existence causes a problem. It is unfortunate, but it is what the law says it is.
My problem is making this automatically a case of institutionalised sexism in court just because the trigger words "attractive" and "all-male" have been mentioned. It is not that easy.