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

2,203 chars

Estrada did not, however, verify that Wang had actually
         received a master’s degree in public health. The letter
         was ultimately signed by the commissioner of the depart-
         ment, approving Wang’s appointment as acting director
         of health for the city of Hartford.
           Approximately one month later, a department employee
         notified Estrada that she had received information from
         an employee of the city of Hartford that Wang did not
         hold a master’s degree in public health. After Estrada
         confirmed that Wang did not have a master’s degree in
         public health, she notified Blaschinski, and Wang was
         removed from the position.
            Estrada was required to log complaints and track
         them. Estrada had previously struggled with this task,
         and her performance improvement plan noted the need
         for her to improve in that area. When Blaschinski asked
         for a copy of the Wang complaint, however, she learned
         that Estrada had not logged it in. Nevertheless, Estrada
         was not disciplined by Blaschinski. Approximately one
         week following the Wang incident, Estrada again failed
         to check the credentials for the appointment of a munic-
         ipality’s acting director of health, this time for the town
         of Monroe. When Blaschinski learned of the repeated
         error, she issued Estrada a letter of reprimand.
            In September, 2015, Blaschinski issued Estrada an
         unsatisfactory annual rating. About two months later,
         Blaschinski issued Estrada another letter of reprimand
         based on two incidents that reflected Estrada’s ongoing
         resistance to her performance improvement plan. On
         the basis of these continued issues, Blaschinski gave
         Estrada an unsatisfactory interim service rating. Estrada
         received another unsatisfactory rating in her 2016 annual
         review, based in part on concerns over Estrada’s han-
         dling of a complaint about a different town health
         director.
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 9

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text