by presenting evidence indicating “(a) that the stated basis has been applied in a discriminatory manner to employees who have filed workers’ compensation claims, (b) that the stated basis conflicts with express company policy on grounds for discharge, or (c) that the employer has disavowed the stated reason or has otherwise acknowledged its pretextual status.” Aldridge, 854 So.2d at 568. A. Federal-Mogul After a full review of the record, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Boutwell’s claim under Ala.Code § 12-16-8.1 against Federal-Mogul. As an initial matter, Boutwell established a prima fade case by presenting evidence that she was employed by Federal-Mogul and that she was terminated while absent on jury duty. See Norfolk, 740 So.2d at 398 (<HOLDING>). Federal-Mogul counters, as it always has,
holding that employee established his prima fade ease by showing that he was removed just days after he served on the jury holding that depriving an employee of vacation days to which he was entitled would constitute adverse action holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that even if employee established prima facie case of retaliation he produced no evidence challenging employers reason for firing him holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live