Section 4-61dd

Citation: Section 4-61dd
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

2,350 chars

The department does not dispute that § 4-61dd con-
       tains a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. Rather,
       the department argues that, because Estrada filed griev-
       ances challenging the same adverse personnel actions
       that form the basis of her whistleblower complaint,
       her whistleblower retaliation action falls outside of the
       waiver of sovereign immunity in § 4-61dd, and, there-
       fore, the Office of Public Hearings lacks subject matter
       jurisdiction to hear Estrada’s whistleblower claim.
       We disagree.
          The plain language of § 4-61dd (e) (2) (A) provides
       that the authorized claim to be brought before the com-
       mission is one alleging that ‘‘a personnel action has
       been threatened or has occurred in violation of subdivi-
       sion (1) of this subsection . . . .’’ Subdivision (1) of
       subsection (e) limits those claims to ones that allege
       that the employee was retaliated against for disclosing
       certain information. General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-
       61dd (e) (1). Indeed, the referee is limited to ‘‘issu[ing]
       a decision concerning whether the officer or employee
       taking or threatening to take the personnel action vio-
       lated any provision of this section.’’ (Emphasis added.)
       General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd (e) (2) (A).
       Because the referee is vested only with the authority
       to decide whether the alleged conduct violates § 4-61dd,
       and the only right protected under this section is the
       right not to be retaliated against for whistleblowing
       activity, it is logical that the only type of claim that can
       be brought before the commission pursuant to § 4-61dd
       (e) (2) (A) is one that alleges whistleblower retaliation.
          Subdivision (3) of § 4-61dd (e) provides the second
       and ‘‘alternative’’ mechanism for bringing a claim that
       an adverse personnel action has been taken or threat-
       ened. Specifically, the state employee may pursue ‘‘such
       claim’’ through the grievance process outlined in his or
       her collective bargaining agreement. Although subdivi-
       sion (3) does not explicitly define the type of claim that
Page 18                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text