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

2,847 chars

mission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate
the complaint, that Estrada had not made a protected
whistleblower disclosure under § 4-61dd, and that Estrada
had failed to establish a causal connection between
any alleged whistleblower disclosure and the alleged
retaliation. Thereafter, the commission appealed to the
Appellate Court, which concluded that the commission
had jurisdiction but nevertheless affirmed the judgment
of the trial court on the merits. Dept. of Public Health
v. Estrada, supra, 211 Conn. App. 226, 247. It concluded
that, because § 19a-200 does not require an acting direc-
tor of health to possess a graduate degree, Estrada’s
report about Wang’s credentials did not disclose any
violation of state law to which § 4-61dd applies. Id.,
245–46. This certified appeal followed.4
On appeal, the commission contends that the Appel-
late Court properly held that the commission had sub-
ject matter jurisdiction over Estrada’s complaint. On
the merits, however, the commission contends that the
Appellate Court incorrectly reasoned that an actual vio-
lation of a statute is required to satisfy a claim of whis-
tleblower retaliation. Rather, the commission argues
that an employee need only prove that he or she had
a reasonable, good faith belief that the reported conduct
violates state law. For its part, the department contends
that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the complaint. It also contends that the commis-
4
We granted the commission’s petition for certification to appeal, limited
to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that
the Office of Public Hearings of the [c]ommission . . . had subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate [Estrada’s] complaint of whistleblower retaliation
under the waiver of sovereign immunity granted by . . . § 4-61dd when
[Estrada] had also pursued union grievances with respect to the same
adverse employment actions?’’ And (2) ‘‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly
conclude that a prima facie claim of retaliation under § 4-61dd requires a
complainant to show that the claimed protected whistleblower disclosure
established an actual violation of state law rather than a good faith reason-
able belief that such a violation had occurred?’’ Dept. of Public Health v.
Estrada, 343 Conn. 921, 921–22, 275 A.3d 211 (2022).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text