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

1,168 chars

ing [that future] documents that are submitted for the
         [department] [c]ommissioner’s signature . . . [are]
         accurate.’’ It was only after Estrada made the same
         mistake again one week later that the department repri-
         manded her. The only evidence to the contrary that the
         referee identified at the prima facie step of the analysis
         was the fact that the department told Estrada she ‘‘was
         [being] punished for the Wang incident.’’ But this alone
         does not establish retaliatory motive. It was Estrada’s
         failure to confirm Wang’s credentials and the potentially
         improper approval of Wang that, in combination with
         additional instances of deficient work performance, led
         to the adverse personnel actions. The referee’s state-
         ment that the department’s reprimands indicated that
         their cause was Estrada’s ‘‘protect[ed] disclosure regard-
         ing [Wang’s] credentials’’ is incorrect. Neither of the
         reprimands indicate that Estrada was being disciplined
         for the disclosure rather than for Estrada’s underlying
         conduct.

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text