(dissenting).
While I agree with the majority’s reliance upon Potter v. Milbank Manufacturing Co., 489 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.1972), and with its statement of the standard of review to be utilized here, I disagree with the conclusion that the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. Eimer offered four possible alternative reasons for his discharge, but the evidence on each one is so weak that only through sheer speculation could it be concluded that any of them might be the true reason.
Eimer’s refusal to accept a promotion to Texaco’s New York headquarters occurred many months before he was fired. And Eimer himself testified that he was not aware of any repercussions resulting from this refusal. In fact, after this refusal Eimer was given a promotion and salary increase in St. Louis. It is inconceivable that his decision to remain in St. Louis was a “true reason” for his discharge after the spill.
When Eimer “refused” to return to St. Louis from Jefferson City on the day *811after the spill he was not, in fact, refusing any company order since his immediate superior called him in Jefferson City and told him that it would be all right to return the following day. One company official did express his displeasure at the delay to Eimer; but that official had no authority to fire Eimer, and his uncontradicted testimony is that he did not recommend that Eimer be discharged, but only that he be suspended for two weeks and given a letter of reprimand. There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence from which to conclude that Eimer’s remaining in Jefferson City overnight to take the professional engineer’s examination was a reason for his discharge.
The fact that Eimer received the most stringent penalty and was the most junior of the company employees who were disciplined because of the spill establishes nothing in the context of this case. There is no evidence to show that Texaco routinely punishes junior employees more harshly for their mistakes. Eimer admitted in his statement to the officials investigating the spill that he, along with others, was responsible for it. And he was in overall charge of the construction project. It is pure speculation to tie Eimer’s discharge to his lack of seniority among those disciplined.
Finally, the fact that Texaco made a claim for damages from the independent piping contractor does not even remotely suggest that it did not also consider Eimer negligent and responsible for the spill. There simply is no connection between Texaco’s claim against the contractor and a conclusion that it did not fire Eimer because of his part in the accident.
This Court should be hesitant to overturn a jury’s finding of fact, but I am convinced that the paucity of probative evidence in this case mandates such a result. I am convinced that the only logical determination that the jury could have made based upon the evidence presented to it was that Eimer was fired for exactly the reason stated in the letter.