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

2,404 chars

reporting and the ensuing discipline, that employee is
          entitled to receive whistleblower protection for reporting
          his or her own error.
             There are two important phrases in § 4-61dd that
          support this conclusion. First, the statute provides that
          ‘‘[a]ny person’’ who discloses covered information is
          included under the statute. General Statutes (Rev. to
          2017) § 4-61dd (a). Second, the statute covers ‘‘any mat-
          ter involving’’ various types of misconduct specified in
          the statute. General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd
          (a). The broad language of each of these phrases is
          consistent with the remedial purpose of § 4-61dd, which
          is to ‘‘root out’’ misconduct in government. Hartford
          County Sheriffs Dept. Communities Charities Assn.
          v. Blumenthal, 47 Conn. Supp. 447, 459, 806 A.2d 1158
          (2001). It is well settled that remedial statutes are inter-
          preted broadly to effectuate their purpose. See, e.g.,
          Thames Talent, Ltd. v. Commission on Human Rights
          & Opportunities, 265 Conn. 127, 137, 827 A.2d 659
          (2003).
             We recognize that this court has previously con-
          cluded that the word ‘‘any’’ ‘‘can have a variety of mean-
          ings,’’ depending on the statutory context, including ‘‘all,
          every, some or one.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
          ted.) Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 267
          Conn. 524, 531, 839 A.2d 1250 (2004). But, as the depart-
          ment concedes, to the extent that there is ambiguity in
          the language of the statute, extratextual sources resolve
          any ambiguity in favor of a broader interpretation. See
          General Statutes § 1-2z (permitting resort to extratex-
          tual sources if statutory language is ambiguous). First,
          it is unlikely that the legislature would have wanted
          employees disciplined for bringing their own actions
          to light, as that would discourage disclosure and under-
          mine the statutory goals. See, e.g., 45 H.R. Proc., supra,
          pp. 2857, 2877 (original intent of statute was ‘‘to protect
          people who have found some [wrongdoing] in a state
June 11, 2024            CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 37

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text