because she and other employees asked Carballo to not lift heavy objects. While the Rineharts claim they terminated Carballo because of her poor attitude, they also admit she was an good waitress, was well liked in the restaurant, and that they wanted to give her a good recommendation. The Rineharts also admit they feared that she would intentionally hurt herself and sue the restaurant. Carballo emphatically denies saying she would sue the restaurant if she had a miscarriage. Clearly, a fact-finder can reach different conclusions of whether Carballo was discriminated against because of her pregnancy. The Court finds that these types of credibility issues, discussed by Reeves, are for the fact-finder to decide. See Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569, 576 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
holding that a petitioner is certainly permitted to use evidence eliminating other potential causes to help carry the burden on causation and may find it necessary to do so when the other evidence on causation is insufficient to make out a prima facie case and in such instances clearly the special master must evaluate what evidence a claimant presents as part of determining whether the claimant makes a prima facie case holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that the establishment of a prima facie case and evidence casting doubt on the veracity of the employers explanation is sufficient to find liability holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a plaintiff s prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employers asserted justification is false may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated emphasis added