Hidalgo County appeals the district court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict that awarded Zamora damages in her lawsuit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “Act”). We affirm for the following reasons:

1. There is legally sufficient evidence in the record of a causal connection between Zamora’s decision to take leave under the Act and the County’s decision to terminate Zamora’s employment. There is also sufficient evidence that the County’s given reason for terminating Zamora was pretextual. Faced with the inconsistencies in Ms. Cedillo’s testimony and the conflicting and contrary testimony of advisory board members Casarez and Quintanilla, the jury was free to disbelieve the County’s proffered explanation, and in the ab *303 sence of that explanation to conclude that the only basis for Zamora’s termination was the exercise of her rights under the Act. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (“a plaintiffs prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.”)

2. Fairly read, Zamora’s First Amended Complaint included a claim of retaliation.

3. The jury’s finding that the County did not act in good faith is not clearly erroneous. See Nero v. Indus. Molding Corp., 167 F.3d 921, 928-29 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.