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

2,597 chars

sion waived and abandoned its merits arguments by
       failing to raise and brief them, rendering that aspect of
       the appeal moot. Finally, if this court does reach the
       merits, the department agrees with the commission that
       employees need only have a reasonable and good faith
       belief that a violation of state law had occurred but
       claims that Estrada lacked such a belief.
          Following oral argument, we ordered the parties to
       file supplemental briefs on the following questions: (1)
       ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that Estra-
       da’s disclosure was not a protected disclosure under
       . . . § 4-61dd? (A) Specifically, does § 4-61dd apply to
       purported misconduct in municipal government? (B)
       Can an employee seek whistleblower protection for
       reporting her own error?’’ (2) ‘‘Did Estrada establish a
       causal connection between any alleged whistleblower
       disclosure and the complained of personnel actions?’’
       And (3) ‘‘[t]o the extent that an actual violation of state
       law is required to establish a prima facie claim of retalia-
       tion under . . . § 4-61dd, did the Appellate Court cor-
       rectly conclude that there were no required
       qualifications for acting directors of public health under
       . . . § 19a-200?’’
                                              I
                    SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
         We begin with the department’s contention that the
       commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
       Estrada’s complaint.5
         5
           The department also argues that the merits issues of this appeal are
       moot because the commission abandoned these arguments. See part II
       of this opinion. It further argues that any decision by this court on the
       abandonment issue would itself constitute a discretionary decision that
       necessarily constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction. Cf. State v. Buhl, 321
       Conn. 688, 724–25 n.29, 138 A.3d 868 (2016). We agree with the department
       on this latter point and, therefore, consider the jurisdictional question before
       we consider the department’s waiver arguments. See, e.g., Baldwin Piano &
       Organ Co. v. Blake, 186 Conn. 295, 297, 441 A.2d 183 (1982) (‘‘[w]henever
       the absence of jurisdiction is brought to the notice of the court or tribunal,
       cognizance of it must be taken and the matter passed [on] before it can
Page 12                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                               0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text