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

1,043 chars

to get information regarding competitors, at least within the time frame set forth by Schmeizl in his thirty day review, was to telephone them pretending to be “Dr. Smith from XYZ University.” She stated that after she informed Schmeizl of her view that such practice was unlawful, she telephoned competitors, but identified herself as a Packard employee. The competitors refused to give information to her and she informed Schmeizl that unless she pretended to be another person she could not obtain information from competitors. She stated that, despite this, Schmeizl expected her to continue to telephone competitors pretending to be someone else, which practice is common within the industry. She further stated that Schmeizl was “punishing” her for not making the telephone calls in the manner directed. In Schmeizl’s ninety day review, in which he recommended termination, he stated, inter alia, the plaintiff “refused to take an assignment I gave to her. [The plaintiff] leaves me no choice but to recommend her immediate termination.”

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text