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

2,308 chars

error in ultimately approving Wang. Accordingly, even
         if § 4-61dd does not apply to purported misconduct in
         municipal government, it applies in this case because
         Estrada reported alleged misconduct at the state level.
                                        B
                Whistleblower Protection for Reporting
                        Employee’s Own Error
            The parties agree that, at least in some circumstances,
         the text of § 4-61dd and the policy behind it support
         the conclusion that employees might be entitled to whis-
         tleblower protection when they self-report. Specifically,
         the commission correctly points out that the statute
         protects reporting by state employees ‘‘having knowl-
         edge of any matter involving . . . violation of state
         laws . . . mismanagement . . . or danger to the pub-
         lic safety’’ in applicable scenarios who report that infor-
         mation to a covered entity. (Emphasis added.) General
         Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd (a); see also General
         Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd (e). The department
         notes, however, that whistleblower statutes cannot ‘‘be
         used by employees to shield themselves from the conse-
         quences of their own misconduct or failures.’’ Trimmer
         v. United States Dept. of Labor, 174 F.3d 1098, 1104
         (10th Cir. 1999). To avoid such a result, the department
         argues, these claims must be resolved through the causal
         connection prong of the McDonnell Douglas test; see,
         e.g., Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 507, 831
         A.2d 260, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932, 837 A.2d 804
         (2003); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
         supra, 411 U.S. 802; under which the self-reporting
         employee must present evidence of retaliatory intent
         beyond the simple fact that the employer promptly dis-
         ciplined the employee for the same misconduct the
         employee reported. For the reasons that follow, we
         agree that, as long as the self-reporting employee can
         prove the necessary causal nexus between the act of
Page 36                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text