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

2,370 chars

in which this court failed to certify a question requested
          by the parties.
             The department also argues that the commission
          abandoned the one merits issue it does address before
          this court by failing to raise or brief that issue in the
          Appellate Court, which did not decide that issue. The
          department contends that the commission did not argue
          in its appeal to the Appellate Court that § 4-61dd pro-
          tected Estrada because she had a reasonable and good
          faith belief that a violation of the statute had occurred.
          This claim of abandonment is unpersuasive. The depart-
          ment conflates the distinction between arguments and
          claims. The commission’s claim has consistently been
          that Estrada made a protected whistleblower disclosure
          pursuant to § 4-61dd. The trial court and the Appellate
          Court each characterized the issue raised by the com-
          mission broadly. The argument as to whether Estrada
          needed to prove an actual violation of state law or
          a reasonable, good faith belief of such a violation is
          ‘‘subsumed within or intertwined with’’ the broader
          legal claim of whether her disclosure was a whis-
          tleblower disclosure under the statute. (Internal quota-
          tion marks omitted.) Jobe v. Commissioner of
          Correction, supra, 334 Conn. 644 n.2. It should also be
          noted that the department never argued that this
          broader claim was abandoned in its response to the
          commission’s petition for certification; rather, it agreed
          that this court should take up the issue. Cf. U.S. Sup.
          Ct. R. 15.2 (effective January 1, 2023) (‘‘Counsel are
          admonished that they have an obligation to the Court
          to point out in the brief in opposition, and not later,
          any perceived misstatement made in the petition. Any
          objection to consideration of a question presented
          based on what occurred in the proceedings below, if the
          objection does not go to jurisdiction, may be deemed
          waived unless called to the Court’s attention in the brief
          in opposition.’’).
June 11, 2024             CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 33

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text