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

2,298 chars

After being on a performance improvement plan for
       approximately two years, Estrada was ultimately demoted
       from epidemiologist 4 to epidemiologist 3. In sum, Estrada
       received three adverse personnel actions: the repri-
       mand following the Wang and town of Monroe inci-
       dents, the second reprimand in November, 2015, and
       her demotion. Estrada grieved these personnel actions
       in accordance with her collective bargaining agreement
       pursuant to § 4-61dd (e) (3) but did not raise a whis-
       tleblower retaliation claim in the forum provided by
       that agreement. All the grievances were denied. In addi-
       tion to filing the grievances, Estrada filed a whis-
       tleblower retaliation claim under § 4-61dd (e) (2) (A),
       based on the same personnel actions, with the com-
       mission.
          In Estrada’s amended complaint before the commis-
       sion, she alleged that her report to Blaschinski, which
       stated that Wang did not possess a graduate degree in
       public health, disclosed a violation of § 19a-200 because
       the statute requires that a person nominated for the
       position of acting director of health hold a graduate
       degree in public health. She alleged that this new infor-
       mation constituted a protected whistleblower disclo-
       sure pursuant to § 4-61dd. Estrada further claimed that,
       after her report to Blaschinski, she was subjected to
       retaliation on multiple occasions. Estrada alleged that,
       in response to her disclosure, she received multiple
       ‘‘unwarranted and unjustified written reprimand[s]’’ and
       ‘‘negative and unsatisfactory performance appraisal[s],’’
       and that she was demoted from the position of epidemi-
       ologist 4 to epidemiologist 3.
          Following a hearing, the referee concluded that Estrada
       had made a protected whistleblower disclosure under
       § 4-61dd and that the department had retaliated against
       her. The department appealed to the Superior Court,
       which sustained the appeal and rendered judgment for
       the department. The trial court concluded that the com-
Page 10                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text