Li Li worked for Packard Bioscience, and Mark Schmeizl

Li Li worked for Packard Bioscience, and Mark Schmeizl was her supervisor. Schmeizl told Li to call Packard’s competitors, pretend to be a potential customer, and request “pricing information and literature.” 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 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. Several months later, Li was terminated on Schmeizl’s recommendation. [Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 134 Conn.App. 448, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)] 

Use the IRAC structure to identify issues and apply law and facts to the case. The IRAC method has four steps:

Identify the issue.

Relevant law - Here you need to explain the law, not just state it. This could be sections/s of the Corporations Act or case law.

Application to the facts - the law is applied to the facts of the problem.

Conclusion

Can Li bring a claim for wrongful discharge? Why or why not?