Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)

Full Text

248 chars
232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir. 2000) (causation is proven by showing that protected activity was temporally close or “followed closely by . . . evidence of retaliatory animus directed against the plaintiff by the defendant”); see also Espinal v. Goord,