Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Citation
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Parent Document
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-03-27
Other Sections in This Document (51)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
Full Text
413 charsthe following undisputed facts are relevant. At various times, the plaintiffs supervisors reviewed her work performance. While he was the plaintiffs supervisor, Mike Wasyl wrote three written performance reviews. On September 1, 1997, he rated the plaintiff as “meets requirements” in all categories and recommended her acceptance as a regular employee. In his reviews on April 1, 1998, and April 1, 1999, he *450