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

2,343 chars

at the city’s level did not obviate the department’s obli-
          gation to review Wang’s credentials or the department’s
          error in ultimately approving Wang. Accordingly, even
          if § 4-61dd does not apply to purported misconduct in
          municipal government, it applies in this case because
          Estrada reported alleged misconduct at the state level.
                                         B
                 Whistleblower Protection for Reporting
                         Employee’s Own Error
             The parties agree that, at least in some circumstances,
          the text of § 4-61dd and the policy behind it support
          the conclusion that employees might be entitled to whis-
          tleblower protection when they self-report. Specifically,
          the commission correctly points out that the statute
          protects reporting by state employees ‘‘having knowl-
          edge of any matter involving . . . violation of state
          laws . . . mismanagement . . . or danger to the pub-
          lic safety’’ in applicable scenarios who report that infor-
          mation to a covered entity. (Emphasis added.) General
          Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd (a); see also General
          Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd (e). The department
          notes, however, that whistleblower statutes cannot ‘‘be
          used by employees to shield themselves from the conse-
          quences of their own misconduct or failures.’’ Trimmer
          v. United States Dept. of Labor, 174 F.3d 1098, 1104
          (10th Cir. 1999). To avoid such a result, the department
          argues, these claims must be resolved through the causal
          connection prong of the McDonnell Douglas test; see,
          e.g., Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 507, 831
          A.2d 260, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932, 837 A.2d 804
          (2003); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
          supra, 411 U.S. 802; under which the self-reporting
          employee must present evidence of retaliatory intent
          beyond the simple fact that the employer promptly dis-
          ciplined the employee for the same misconduct the
          employee reported. For the reasons that follow, we
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 33

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text