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

2,408 chars

After being on a performance improvement plan for
          approximately two years, Estrada was ultimately demoted
          from epidemiologist 4 to epidemiologist 3. In sum, Estrada
          received three adverse personnel actions: the repri-
          mand following the Wang and town of Monroe inci-
          dents, the second reprimand in November, 2015, and
          her demotion. Estrada grieved these personnel actions
          in accordance with her collective bargaining agreement
          pursuant to § 4-61dd (e) (3) but did not raise a whis-
          tleblower retaliation claim in the forum provided by
          that agreement. All the grievances were denied. In addi-
          tion to filing the grievances, Estrada filed a whis-
          tleblower retaliation claim under § 4-61dd (e) (2) (A),
          based on the same personnel actions, with the com-
          mission.
             In Estrada’s amended complaint before the commis-
          sion, she alleged that her report to Blaschinski, which
          stated that Wang did not possess a graduate degree in
          public health, disclosed a violation of § 19a-200 because
          the statute requires that a person nominated for the
          position of acting director of health hold a graduate
          degree in public health. She alleged that this new infor-
          mation constituted a protected whistleblower disclo-
          sure pursuant to § 4-61dd. Estrada further claimed that,
          after her report to Blaschinski, she was subjected to
          retaliation on multiple occasions. Estrada alleged that,
          in response to her disclosure, she received multiple
          ‘‘unwarranted and unjustified written reprimand[s]’’ and
          ‘‘negative and unsatisfactory performance appraisal[s],’’
          and that she was demoted from the position of epidemi-
          ologist 4 to epidemiologist 3.
             Following a hearing, the referee concluded that Estrada
          had made a protected whistleblower disclosure under
          § 4-61dd and that the department had retaliated against
          her. The department appealed to the Superior Court,
          which sustained the appeal and rendered judgment for
          the department. The trial court concluded that the com-
June 11, 2024                 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text