stating that "a [judgment as a matter of law] is not appropriate where, as here, the employer subsequently contradicts the reason it initially gave for the discharge, thereby at least implicitly disavowing it or by such action acknowledging its pretextual status"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "a [judgment as a matter of law] is not appropriate where, as here, the employer subsequently contradicts the reason it initially gave for the discharge, thereby at least implicitly disavowing it or by such action acknowledging its pretextual status"
- "It is axiomatic that it is the [fact-finder's] province to resolve conflicts in testimony ... and to judge the credibility of witnesses. ... [A fact-finder] concluding that any witness was willfully not truthful about one material aspect of his or her testimony is free to disregard all or any part of the testimony." (citations omitted)
- discussing a demonstration of pretext based on discrepancies in the stated reasons for the discharge by the employer
- which involved a judgment containing a punitive-damages award that was less than the corresponding compensatory-damages award
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Flint's stated basis for its termination of Hall's employment was Hall's unexcused absences from work, especially at the Bastrop job site. At the time of the termination, however, Flint's decision-makers told Hall by telephone that his employment was being terminated because of lack of work. They later admitted that this was not true. I therefore conclude that Flint is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because, when the initial stated basis for a termination in a retaliatory-discharge case is shown to be untrue, numerous questions of fact are raised, which under our caselaw are for the jury to decide. See, e.g., Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge , 854 So.2d 554 , 568 (Ala. 2002); Coastal Lumber Co. v. Johnson , 669 So.2d 803 , 810 (Ala. 1995); Culbreth v. Woodham Plumbing Co. , 599 So.2d 1120 , 1122 (Ala. 1992).
Accordingly, I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.