In Barbe v. A.A. Harmon & Co., 94-2423 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/7/98); 705 So. 2d 1210, writ denied, 98-526 (La. 5/15/98); 719 So. 2d 462, the court noted, "the adequacy of jury instructions must be determined in light of the instruction as a whole." Id. at p. 7, 705 So. 2d at 1216. After reviewing the jury instructions as a whole, the Barbe court only then concluded: The only jury interrogatory on the issue of age discrimination in this case asked "Did the defendant, A.A. Harmon & Co., commit unlawful age discrimination against Joseph L. Barbe, Jr.?" The jury's answer to that interrogatory, unfortunately, cannot help us in determining if the jury specifically concluded that Harmon's stated reason for Mr. Barbe's discharge was pretextual, and that he would not have been terminated but for the motive of age discrimination. We find that the jury instruction given on age discrimination in this case was misleading and confusing and did not adequately state the substance of the law, and that the inadequate and misleading jury charge probably was responsible for an incorrect verdict. Accordingly, a de novo review of the record on this issue is required. Id. at p. 9-10, 705 So. 2d at 1217.