Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

Ex parte NAIL AIR FREIGHT, INC., and Mike Nail. (Re Carl Anthony BIRD v. NAIL AIR FREIGHT, INC., and Mike Nail).

KENNEDY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, COOK, and SEE, JJ., concur.

HOOPER, C.J., and BUTTS, J., dissent.

HOOPER, Chief Justice (dissenting).

I must respectfully dissent. I believe the summary judgment was correctly entered for the defendant. The proffered reason for discharging the plaintiff, offered in answer to the retaliatory discharge claim, was that the plaintiff had made bomb threats to the defendant. The defendant supported the bomb-threats accusation with testimony from several of the plaintiffs co-employees.

After the defendant made its properly supported summary judgment motion, the plaintiff had the burden of presenting "substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact" as to whether the proffered reason was actually a pretext. Capital Alliance Insurance Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc., 639 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala. 1994). The only evidence offered to show that the plaintiff did not make the bomb threats was the plaintiff's own testimony that he did not make them.

I am not satisfied that the plaintiff's own testimony is substantial enough to meet the burden the plaintiff must meet to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Consequently, I would grant certiorari review to consider this question.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Ex parte NAIL AIR FREIGHT, INC
(Mar 14, 1997)