for clients before she would retire, and whether Toombs prevented her from bringing in new clients by not acting on her list of perspective new clients. If these disputes are resolved in plaintiffs favor, a jury may find that defendant’s proffered reason for plaintiffs termination was false and a pretext for discrimination. Further, Toombs’s testimony that he did not set sales goals for plaintiff because he “knew she couldn’t do it” is insufficient to justify her termination. An employer’s subjective evaluations “are not adequate [justification] by themselves because they may mask prohibited prejudice.” Sweeney v. Research Foundation of St. Univ. of New York, 711 F.2d 1179, 1185 (2d Cir.1983); see also Knight v. Nassau County Civil Service Comm’n, 649 F.2d 157, 161 (2d Cir.l981)(<HOLDING>) “[T]he evidence produced by the employer
holding that supervisory employee is not an employer under the terms of cfepa and because the employer is liable for the employees actions a plaintiff may not maintain an action against the employee individually under conngenstat  46a60 holding that an employer may not use completely subjective and unarticulated standards to judge employee performance holding that whether an employee decides to assist the charging party or refuses to assist the  employer the employer may not retaliate against the employee because this decision of the employee constitutes participation in an investigation or proceeding under title vii holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee