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

3,087 chars

In the present case, we conclude that Estrada’s dis-
closure falls within the protection of § 4-61dd (a) and
its broad definition of ‘‘any matter involving . . . viola-
tion of state laws . . . mismanagement . . . or danger
to the public safety,’’ despite her involvement in the
actions giving rise to the disclosure. Her disclosure
exposed the fact that the department had approved an
acting director of health arguably in violation of § 19a-
200 because the acting director did not have the mas-
ter’s degree he claimed to have on his resume. The
disclosure also brought to light the deficient review
process that led to the error of approving Wang. Specifi-
cally, the disclosure reported that the department had
no policy to guide the review of credentials for prospec-
tive acting directors. Blaschinski testified that ‘‘she did
not have personal knowledge of the customary proce-
dure or whether there was even a policy in place about
reviewing credential[s].’’ Following Estrada’s disclo-
sure, the department implemented a policy for reviewing
credentials for acting directors. The policy ‘‘does not
require the [department] to undertake independent veri-
fication of the appointed individual’s credentials;
of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S. Ct. 568, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471
(1977) (first to set forth dual motive discharge test). In cases in which the
employee has proven that the employer had an illegal motive to discharge
the employee, the burden of proof fairly rests with the employer because
‘‘[t]he employer is a wrongdoer; [the employer] has acted out of a motive
that is declared illegitimate by the statute. It is fair that [the employer] bear
the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated
. . . because the risk was created . . . by [the employer’s] own wrongdo-
ing.’’ National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp.,
462 U.S. 393, 403, 103 S. Ct. 2469, 76 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1983), overruled in part
on other grounds by Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs,
Dept. of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 114 S. Ct. 2251, 129
L. Ed. 2d 221 (1994). Once the employer satisfies its burden, either of
persuasion or production, the rebuttable presumption that the employee
was discharged for impermissible factors is dissolved. See, e.g., Loyd v.
Phillips Bros., Inc., 25 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir. 1994). The employee is then
required to prove that the employer’s proffered reason for the termination
of employment is a mere pretext for an unlawful discharge. See, e.g., Fisher
v. Transco Services-Milwaukee, Inc., 979 F.2d 1239, 1243 (7th Cir. 1992).
Page 40 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text