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

907 chars

411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under this analysis, the plaintiff has a minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing that he or she engaged in a protected activity or otherwise fell within the protection of the statute, that he or she was subsequently discharged, and that there was a causal connection between the two. If a prima facie showing is made, the burden of going forward shifts to the employer to demonstrate a permissible reason for the termination of employment. If the employer’s burden of going forward is satisfied, the plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s reason is pretextual or, even if true, the improper reason likely motivated the employer in the decision to terminate. See Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395, 400- *455 401, 880 A.2d 151 (2005); Arnone v. Enfield,

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text