Opinion ID: 1354966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: wallace's proof

Text: Finally, we hold that Wallace's evidence was sufficient to establish retaliation as the determinative factor for his discharge. On the issue of pretext, the record establishes that, although Milliken's decision to fire Wallace was purportedly made shortly after the accident, it was not disclosed prior to his return in December. We agree with Court of Appeals that, had the discharge been motivated solely by safety concerns, Milliken would have terminated Wallace immediately. This is especially true in light of the emphasis Milliken claims to have placed on safety. Moreover, company procedures for cleaning of the calendar machine were extremely vague; indeed, the record reflects that the training Wallace received on the machine was patently inadequate. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed as modified. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.