# Flint Constr. Co. v. Hall

> Supreme Court of Alabama · December 30, 2004 · 904 So. 2d 236

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9939005

## Case

- **Full name:** Flint Construction Company v. Robert Lee Hall, Jr.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 30, 2004
- **Citations:** 904 So. 2d 236; 2004 WL 3017015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nabers
- **Judges:** Lyons, Nabers, See
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9939005

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"
- discussing a demonstration of pretext based on discrepancies in the stated reasons for the discharge by the employer

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9939005. Public record. Not legal advice.