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

1,194 chars

Even if we were to hold that the statutory presump-
         tion applies and that Estrada made out a prima facie
         case, the department rebutted this presumption.11 The
         department submitted three union grievances explicitly
         holding that the same adverse employment actions
         Estrada challenged before the commission were taken
         for just cause. The trial court held that the referee’s
         decision to exclude these decisions ‘‘was clear error
         and an abuse of discretion’’ because they ‘‘establish
         a legitimate reason for each action, namely, the poor
         performance of [Estrada],’’ and are ‘‘relevant probative
         evidence’’ that serves to ‘‘rebut’’ any presumption or
         inference of retaliation Estrada may have made at the
         prima facie stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis.
            11
               The trial court concluded that, even if the two year statutory presump-
         tion applied, it is rebuttable, and ‘‘[t]he record here clearly and unmistakably
         rebuts the presumption.’’
Page 46                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text