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

2,423 chars

61dd is to create a better functioning government by
encouraging employees to disclose misconduct so that
appropriate corrective action can be taken to remedy
the problem. The statute’s protections are the means
to the end of ‘‘root[ing] out waste and corruption in
government . . . .’’ Hartford County Sheriffs Dept.
Communities Charities Assn. v. Blumenthal, supra,
47 Conn. Supp. 459; see 45 H.R. Proc., supra, p. 2857,
remarks of Representative O’Rourke (statute’s protec-
tions exist ‘‘in order to protect the public tax dollar and
the proper running of our [state] government’’).
Construing the two year statutory presumption to
apply in this case would undermine the policy goal of
the legislation. Such an interpretation would prevent
an employer from taking corrective and deterrent action
against the employee because the employer would always
be subjected to an automatic presumption of retaliation.
The effect would be that employers either would not
take corrective action or would wait two years to take
corrective action, thwarting the statutory policy of
deterrence and accountability. It would be of little use
if an employee reported his or her misconduct, but the
employer could not take corrective action with respect
to that misconduct. Indeed, it does not make practical
sense to shift the burden to the employer to justify its
action after an employee has admitted to his or her
own misconduct. For example, if an employee admitted
to stealing thousands of dollars from an employer, it
would not be reasonable to infer that the employee
was disciplined for the disclosure rather than for the
theft itself.
State agencies often, and should, take corrective
action within two years of learning of malfeasance. That
is precisely what § 4-61dd intends. Temporal proximity
will always be present in these types of cases but will
not be, without more, probative of retaliatory intent.
To conclude otherwise would allow every self-reporting
June 11, 2024 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 43

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text