He also explained that he was not given adequate time to answer the charges made against him in this audit, as was the customary procedure, before being fired.


14
In defense of its actions, WCC called Lockhart's former immediate supervisor, Robert Nazworth, to testify.  But on cross-examination Nazworth conceded that he considered Lockhart to have been a good and dependable worker;  that confusion on his part may have contributed to some of the charges against Lockhart;  and that WCC had a policy of "progressive discipline" whereby any employee would receive various stages of reprimand before being dismissed.  WCC also called Benjamin Russell, the second person responsible for Lockhart's termination, to testify.  On cross-examination, Russell conceded that Lockhart had never been insubordinate and had never deliberatelyviolated company policy.  Notwithstanding Lockhart's reputation, Russell testified that he did not request that Nazworth conduct an investigation into the audit's allegations against Lockhart, and that he did not believe that Lockhart, after 22 years with WCC, deserved a second chance.


15
On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that Lockhart's proffered evidence was sufficient to provide a rational basis for the jury's conclusion that WCC's purported justification was not credible and, therefore, that age was the determinative factor in Lockhart's discharge.9

2. Durham

16
Durham, at age 50, was terminated on February 17, 1984, from his position as Regional Administrative Manager in Atlanta, Georgia.  He had been employed by WCC since 1960;  had received various promotions throughout his tenure;  and had received merit salary