1990), the court ruled that the defendant restaurant did not have to reinstate the plaintiff veteran on the grounds that the plaintiff was unqualified under the VRRA because he brought numerous weapons to work, threatened to Idll fellow employees and served liquor to underage patrons. Moreover, all of this behavior occurred within six months prior to the plaintiff leaving to enter the service. Similarly, in Green v. Tho-Ro Products, Inc., 232 F.2d 172 (3 Cir., 1956), the court affirmed judgment for the defendant employer, holding that the plaintiff veteran was unqualified under the VRRA because he urged other employees to pass off defective products, created general discord in the workplace and threatened on numerous occasions to ruin the company. See also Doane, supra, 164 F.2d 537 (<HOLDING>); Greathouse, supra, 381 F.Supp. 156 (ruling
holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial holding that trial court was not permitted to conclude that damages could have been avoided absent evidence to that effect and that defendant bore burden of presenting that evidence holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that evidence that plaintiff employee was often drunk at work should have been admitted at trial because it bore on the issue of whether he was qualified under the vrra holding that whether or not claimant would have returned to work at all was a question of fact