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

2,536 chars

Federal case law similarly treats self-reporting as an
‘‘exception to [the normal causation] rule’’ that requires
the employee ‘‘to show more’’ than just that the report
led to the adverse personnel action. BNSF Railway Co.
v. United States Dept. of Labor, 816 F.3d 628, 639 (10th
Cir. 2016); see, e.g., Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Rail-
road Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor Administrative
Review Board, 948 F.3d 940, 946 (8th Cir. 2020). The
relevant question is whether the employer disciplined
the employee for the disclosure itself or the underlying
conduct. See, e.g., Smith v. Dept. of Labor, 674 Fed.
Appx. 309, 316–18 (4th Cir. 2017); BNSF Railway Co.
v. United States Dept. of Labor, supra, 638–41.
In the present case, Estrada failed to produce any
evidence of a retaliatory motive other than temporal
proximity. There is no evidence that supports a conclu-
sion that the department took the adverse personnel
actions in retaliation for the disclosure rather than for
the underlying misconduct. Estrada could have alleged,
but did not, that she was treated differently from other
employees who made similar mistakes, that her supervi-
sors attempted to dissuade her from reporting or threat-
ened her with discipline if she did, or that her
supervisors already knew of her mistakes but ignored
them until after she made the public disclosure. See,
e.g., Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v.
U.S. Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board,
supra, 948 F.3d 947. Rather, the evidence establishes
that Blaschinski did not reprimand Estrada or take any
other disciplinary action when Estrada made the disclo-
sure regarding Wang and, instead, tried to address the
retaliatory discharge claims, brought pursuant to § 31-290a, for the discharge
of employees after they file for workers’ compensation benefits; see Otero
v. Housing Authority, 86 Conn. App. 103, 104–105, 108–109, 860 A.2d 285
(2004); and in the context of whistleblower claims for retaliation, brought
pursuant to General Statutes § 31-51m (b), for the discharge of employees
who report employers for suspected violations of state or federal law. See
Arnone v. Enfield, supra, 79 Conn. App. 506–507.
Page 42 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text