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

2,187 chars

require the [department] to undertake independent veri-
fication of the appointed individual’s credentials;
instead, the local health department provides the OLHA
with a copy of the appointed individual’s transcript
or diploma.’’
Concluding that Estrada’s disclosure did not fall
within the ambit of § 4-61dd due to her involvement in
the underlying conduct would disincentivize her and
other state employees, out of fear that they may face
disciplinary consequences as a result of self-reporting,
from disclosing ‘‘malfeasance or inefficiencies or
incompetence . . . .’’ 22 S. Proc., supra, p. 5648,
remarks of Senator Leonhardt. Affording this disclosure
protection under § 4-61dd would encourage state
employees ‘‘to report these [wrongdoings] to their supe-
riors . . . .’’ Id. Accordingly, the broad language of the
statute, the legislative history, and the remedial policy
of the statute compel the conclusion that an employee
may seek whistleblower protection for reporting his or
her own error under § 4-61dd.
C
Causation
The department contends that Estrada failed to prove
causation and that the referee mistakenly concluded
that the department had retaliated against Estrada for
reporting her errors instead of for making those errors.
The department argues that the referee improperly (1)
presumed a retaliatory motive under § 4-61dd (e) (4),
and (2) excluded three grievance decisions establishing
the department’s nonretaliatory grounds for discipline.
The commission contends that Estrada established a
causal connection by inference. The commission also
points to the two year statutory presumption in § 4-
61dd (e) (4) and contends that, because Estrada blew
the whistle within two years of the adverse personnel
action, there was a rebuttable presumption that the
Page 38 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text