is truly challenging the trial court’s interpretation of the pertinent law, in which case our review is plenary ... or whether [the defendant] is actually disputing the court’s factual findings, in which case we review those findings for clear error.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468, 481, 964 A.2d 73 (2009). Whether the defendant made “good faith efforts” is a subjective, factual determination. See Phillipe v. Thomas, 3 Conn. App. 471, 474-75, 489 A.2d 1056 (1985). As such, “[t]he trier of fact, using the evidence at its disposal and considering the unique circumstances of each case, is in the best position to make [this] individualized determination . . . .” Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges, 116 Conn. App. 531, 539, 976 A.2d 784 (2009); id., 538 (<HOLDING>). The defendant does not argue that the trial
holding that but for standard applied to retaliation case brought under texas law holding that the question of causation in a prima facie case of retaliation brought under general statutes  46a60 is factual in nature and thereby subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review