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

2,716 chars

sion waived and abandoned its merits arguments by
failing to raise and brief them, rendering that aspect of
the appeal moot. Finally, if this court does reach the
merits, the department agrees with the commission that
employees need only have a reasonable and good faith
belief that a violation of state law had occurred but
claims that Estrada lacked such a belief.
Following oral argument, we ordered the parties to
file supplemental briefs on the following questions: (1)
‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that Estra-
da’s disclosure was not a protected disclosure under
. . . § 4-61dd? (A) Specifically, does § 4-61dd apply to
purported misconduct in municipal government? (B)
Can an employee seek whistleblower protection for
reporting her own error?’’ (2) ‘‘Did Estrada establish a
causal connection between any alleged whistleblower
disclosure and the complained of personnel actions?’’
And (3) ‘‘[t]o the extent that an actual violation of state
law is required to establish a prima facie claim of retalia-
tion under . . . § 4-61dd, did the Appellate Court cor-
rectly conclude that there were no required
qualifications for acting directors of public health under
. . . § 19a-200?’’
I
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
We begin with the department’s contention that the
commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Estrada’s complaint.5
5
The department also argues that the merits issues of this appeal are
moot because the commission abandoned these arguments. See part II
of this opinion. It further argues that any decision by this court on the
abandonment issue would itself constitute a discretionary decision that
necessarily constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction. Cf. State v. Buhl, 321
Conn. 688, 724–25 n.29, 138 A.3d 868 (2016). We agree with the department
on this latter point and, therefore, consider the jurisdictional question before
we consider the department’s waiver arguments. See, e.g., Baldwin Piano &
Organ Co. v. Blake, 186 Conn. 295, 297, 441 A.2d 183 (1982) (‘‘[w]henever
the absence of jurisdiction is brought to the notice of the court or tribunal,
cognizance of it must be taken and the matter passed [on] before it can
June 11, 2024 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text