Exceptions to the Employment-at-Will Doctrine. Li Li worked for Packard Bioscience, and Mark Schmeizl was her supervisor. In March 2000, Schmeizl told Li Li to call Packard’s competitors, pretend to be a potential customer, and request “pricing information and literature.”
Li Li refused to perform the assignment. She told Schmeizl that she thought the work was illegal and recommended that he contact Packard’s legal department.
Although a lawyer recommended against the practice, Schmeizl insisted that Li Li perform the calls. Moreover, he later wrote negative performance reviews because she was unable to get the requested information when she called competitors and identified herself as a Packard employee.
Research and ansalysis the case with summary, then answer the questions.
[Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 134 Conn.App. 448, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)] (See Employment at Will.)
On June 1, 2000, Li Li was terminated on Schmeizl’s recommendation. Can Li Li bring a claim for wrongful discharge? Why or why not?
Please write the summary using the template
- Facts.
The background story: what happened in the real world to cause the parties to go to court to resolve their dispute.
- Law.
References to relevant legal principles, precedent, statutes, the Constitution, or other sources of guidance for determining the outcome of the case.
- Analysis.
Weaving together of facts and relevant law, as the judge decides the outcome of the case (holding) and explains the reasoning.
- Resolution.
The ruling of the court.
0 comments