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

2,786 chars

presumption should not apply when a whistleblower
reports his or her own error, and, even if it does, the
department rebutted this presumption.8 We agree with
the department.
We begin by considering whether the two year statu-
tory presumption applies when an employee reports
his or her own error. Section 4-61dd (e) (4) provides
in relevant part that, ‘‘[i]n any proceeding under subdivi-
sion (2) or (3)’’ of § 4-61dd (e), if the ‘‘personnel action
occurs not later than two years after the employee first
[makes a protected disclosure] . . . there shall be a
rebuttable presumption that the personnel action is in
retaliation’’ for that disclosure.
As we explained in part III B of this opinion, the word
‘‘any’’ is ambiguous, and can refer to ‘‘all, every, some
or one,’’ depending on the statutory context.9 (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Ames v. Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles, supra, 267 Conn. 531. Given this ambigu-
ity, we may look to extratextual sources for interpretive
guidance; see General Statutes § 1-2z; and there are
several such sources that support the conclusion that
‘‘any proceeding’’ should not include instances of self-
reporting for purposes of the statutory presumption.
First, as the department points out, the goal of § 4-
8
The department had not previously advanced this argument but urges
this court to consider it because it is merely a new ‘‘point or line of reasoning
made in support of’’ the broader issue about why Estrada failed to make a
prima facie case. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jobe v. Commissioner
of Correction, supra, 334 Conn. 644 n.2. We agree that this is merely a
different argument and not a new claim. See, e.g., id. Moreover, the commis-
sion has briefed the applicability of the statutory presumption, so this court
has the benefit of thorough briefing on the issue.
9
Even if the term ‘‘any proceeding’’ is not ambiguous, concluding that
the statutory presumption applies in situations in which an employee reports
his or her own misconduct would lead to absurd and unintended conse-
quences that we discuss subsequently in this opinion. See, e.g., Desrosiers
v. Diageo North America, Inc., 314 Conn. 773, 784–86, 105 A.3d 103 (2014)
(plain and unambiguous text is not dispositive when it creates absurd results
that defeat legislative intent).
Page 42 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text