Li Li v. Canberra Industries
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 152
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Li Li was employed by Packard (later related entities) and terminated in June 2000.
- Supervisors gave multiple performance reviews: Wasyl rated Li Li as meeting requirements; Lee later rated her in 2000 as unacceptable; Richardson warned of possible disciplinary action and transfer.
- Schmeizl supervised Li Li from March 2000 and directed her to call competitors’ lines to gather pricing information while she opposed the tactic as potentially illegal.
- Li Li reported the practice as illegal, informed Schmeizl, and documented repeated negative reviews and a May 31, 2000 ninety-day review recommending termination.
- Li Li filed an eleven-count revised complaint in January 2009 alleging various wrongful discharge theories and related claims; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts except Counts 1 and 6 on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to causation for common-law wrongful discharge | Li Li argues termination was retaliatory for whistle-blowing | Defendants contend termination was based on documented poor performance | No genuine issue; court erred in granting summary judgment on count 1 |
| Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to causation under § 31-51q | Li Li asserts free-speech retaliation caused termination | Defendants argue no causal link proved | No genuine issue; court erred in granting summary judgment on count 6 |
| Whether other elements beyond causation were properly resolved at summary judgment | Plaintiff submitted materials suggesting alternate reasons for termination | Defendants maintain permissible reasons supported termination | The trial court's disposition on other counts was affirmed; reversal limited to counts 1 and 6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 (1980) (established public policy exception to at-will employment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for pleading prima facie case in wrongful discharge)
- Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395 (2005) (burden-shifting analysis for retaliatory discharge)
- Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn.App. 501 (2003) (pretextual or improper reasons in discharge cases)
- Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 556 (2002) (causation required in Sheets-type claims)
- Sophia v. Danbury, 116 Conn. App. 68 (2009) (causation standards in common-law wrongful discharge)
- Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 249 Conn. 766 (1999) (public policy/public-concern considerations in speech-related claims)
- Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999) (constitutional rights in workplace and speech protections)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity as evidence of retaliation)
- Aspetuck Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Weston, 292 Conn. 817 (2009) (summary judgment standards and appellate review)