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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2295755/li-li-v-canberra-industries/ ↗

Full Text

1,331 chars

On March 30, 2000, having supervised the plaintiff for thirty days, Schmeizl sent the plaintiff an e-mail reviewing her performance. He noted “serious concerns” regarding missed deadlines and noted that “[i]n light of the needs improvement review you received from [Richardson] before joining my group, it will be important that I see significant improvements over the next sixty days.” He outlined various tasks for her to perform, and recorded the date each task was assigned, due and completed. Sixty days after the plaintiff was assigned to his group, Schmeizl, on May 1, 2000, sent the plaintiff a second e-mail regarding her work performance, stating that he had tried to be lenient regarding her requests for time off, “but when the time off is combined with substandard work I must become more strict regarding your horns.” He added “take your work seriously. . . I would very much like to give you a good review at the end of May.” Schmeizl’s ninety day review on May 31,2000, rated the plaintiffs work performance overall as “unacceptable.” He commented that the plaintiff was “unfriendly with co-workers, has not completed certain assignments, and . . . refused to take an assignment I gave her.” Schmeizl recommended termination of her employment. On June 1, 2000, the plaintiffs employment with Packard was terminated.

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text