Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)

Citation: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Parent Document: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131752/dept-of-public-health-v-estrada/ ↗

Full Text

3,239 chars

The named defendant, E, an employee of the plaintiff, the Department of
            Public Health, filed a complaint with the defendant Commission on
            Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the plaintiff retaliated
            against her for a whistleblower disclosure that she had made and that
            allegedly was protected by statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd). E’s job
            duties included reviewing the qualifications of individuals who are
            appointed to be a municipal director or acting director of health. The
            department had received an appointment letter from the then director
            of health of Hartford, requesting approval of W as Hartford’s acting
            director of health. Both the letter and W’s resume represented that W
            held a master’s degree in public health, which is one of two alternative
            statutory ((Rev. to 2015) § 19a-200 (a)) prerequisites for the appointment
            to the position of municipal director of health. E reviewed the request,
            including W’s resume, and she drafted a letter approving the appointment
            without first verifying that W actually possessed a master’s degree in
            public health. The Commissioner of Public Health ultimately signed the
            approval letter. E subsequently learned that W did not possess a master’s
            degree in public health, and, after she notified her supervisor, B, W was
            removed from the acting director position. Shortly thereafter, E again
            failed to verify the credentials of an individual who had been appointed
            to serve as another municipality’s acting director of health. When B
            learned of the repeated error, E received a letter of reprimand. E subse-
            quently received another letter of reprimand and multiple, unsatisfactory
            performance appraisals, and was ultimately demoted. Pursuant to a
            collective bargaining agreement, E filed grievances challenging the fore-
            going, adverse personnel actions but did not raise a whistleblower retali-
            ation claim in connection with those grievances. All of the grievances
            were denied. E then filed the present whistleblower retaliation claim
            with the commission pursuant to § 4-61dd (e) (2) (A). E’s claim was based
            on the same personnel actions that formed the basis of her grievances.
            In E’s amended complaint filed with the commission, E alleged, inter
            alia, that her statement to B that W did not possess a master’s degree
            in public health constituted a report of a violation of § 19a-200 (a). E
            further alleged that this information constituted a protected whis-
            tleblower disclosure under § 4-61dd, in response to which the depart-
            ment retaliated against her. A hearing was held before a human rights
            referee, who concluded that E had made a protected whistleblower
            disclosure under § 4-61dd and that the department had retaliated against
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    Page 1

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text