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

965 chars

She framed her action in the following manner. In count one of her revised complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants discharged her under the pretext of poor performance reviews when, in fact, the discharge was retaliatory for her “whistle-blowing.” Regarding this count, the plaintiff alleged the following facts. In March, 2000, when her supervisor, Schmeizl, wanted her to call competitor companies pretending to be a customer to obtain information, she refused to do so, stated such act was illegal and suggested that Schmeizl contact the legal department. Schmeizl did so and on March 27, 2000, he received an e-mail from the legal department advising him to refrain from such practices. Schmeizl, nonetheless, continued to direct the plaintiff to call competitors in the manner at issue and commented negatively in a thirty day performance review on March 30, 2000, regarding her failure to call competitor customer support lines. *454

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text