|
3276 In an action for retaliatory termination, circumstantial evidence consisting of proof that prior to plaintiff’s participation in an investigation of her supervisor’s sexually inappropriate behavior, her employer had never questioned her record-keeping habits, had regarded her as a top performer, had named her the company's best merchandiser in the entire US, had given her numerous awards, and had never said anything negative about her, but that after her participation in the investigation, she had been terminated for record-keeping practices for which the company was more lenient with other employees was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to causation.CitationCOLAROSSI v COTY (Coincidental Termination) 97 CA4 1142 [See: Akers v County 95 CA4 1441, T/AT 3/03 3231; Iwekaogwu v City 75 CA4 803, T/AT 11/99 2520; Flait v North American 3 CA4 467]
|
|
