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

2,075 chars

waived unless called to the Court’s attention in the brief
in opposition.’’).
Accordingly, we ordered the parties to file supple-
mental briefing on the broader question on which the
parties’ sought certification. We conclude that the com-
mission did not waive its merits arguments, and, as a
result, this appeal is not moot. Thus, we will consider
the merits of the commission’s appeal.
III
WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
We now turn to the commission’s contention that
Estrada’s disclosure constituted a protected whistleblower
disclosure.
At the outset, we note our agreement with the parties
that § 4-61dd claims should be analyzed using the three
part, burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–805, 93 S.
Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) (McDonnell Douglas).
See, e.g., Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, 135 Conn. App. 563, 577–79 and n.5, 42
A.3d 478 (2012); see also, e.g., Ford v. Blue Cross &
Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 216 Conn. 40, 53–54,
578 A.2d 1054 (1990).
A
Applicability of § 4-61dd to Purported Misconduct
in Municipal Government
The department contends that Estrada’s statement
to her supervisor, Blaschinski, was not a protected dis-
closure because § 4-61dd does not apply to misconduct
in municipal government. Specifically, the department
frames the issue as Wang’s misrepresentation on his
resume and his resulting appointment as acting director
of health for the city of Hartford. The department notes
that § 4-61dd (a) applies to misconduct occurring in
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 31

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text