Dep't of Pub. Health v. Estrada

315 A.3d 1081

349 Conn. 223

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

v.Juanita ESTRADA et al.

(SC 20717)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 14, 2023

Officially Released June 11, 2024

Anna-Marie Puryear, human rights attorney, with whom was Megan K. Graefe, human rights attorney, for the appellant (defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities).

Michael K. Skold, deputy solicitor general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins and Ecker, Js.

McDONALD, J.

₂₂₈In this whistleblower retaliation action, the named defendant, Juanita Estrada, who was employed by the plaintiff, the Department of Public Health (department), claims that she made a protected whistleblower disclosure; see General Stat- utes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-61dd;¹ when she notified her supervisor that (1) the acting director of health for the city of Hartford did not have a master’s degree as he had represented on his resume, and (2) she had not confirmed his credentials at the time of his appointment. A human rights referee (referee) with the Office of Public Hearings of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission) concluded that Estrada’s disclosure constituted a protected whistleblower disclosure. On appeal, the trial court concluded, among other things, that Estrada’s disclosure to her supervisor did not constitute a whistleblower disclosure pursuant to § 4-61dd and that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s complaint because she had brought the same adverse personnel actions at issue through the grievance procedures in her collective bargaining agreement. The commission appealed to the Appellate Court, which held that the trial court had incorrectly determined that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whistleblower retaliation complaint. See ₂₂₉Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 211 Conn. App. 223, 226, 271 A.3d 1042 (2022). It also concluded, however, that the trial court correctly decided that Estrada did not make a protected whistleblower disclosure within the meaning of § 4-61dd. See id.

Estrada began working for the department in 1995 as an epidemiologist, and, by 2010, she had been promoted to epidemiologist 4. Since at least 2014, Estrada has had performance issues at the department. Estrada’s supervisor, Ellen Blaschinski, downgraded her in some categories on her 2014 performance evaluation because she did not have a strong knowledge of the department’s regulations and had not moved the department’s Office of Local Health Administration (OLHA) in the regulatory direction that was expected. Shortly thereafter, Estrada mishandled a case involving the removal of a local health director, which required Blaschinski to relieve Estrada and take over the investigation herself. Estrada was then placed on a performance improvement plan.

Estrada’s responsibilities as an epidemiologist 4 included, among other things, reviewing an applicant’s qualifications to serve as director or acting director of health for a municipality. General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 19a-200² prescribes the minimum qualifications that a municipality’s director of health must possess. At the time of the underlying events, that statute provided that the director of health for a municipality must be either a licensed physician and hold a degree in public health from an accredited institution or hold a graduate degree in public health from an accredited institution. General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 19a-200 (a). Section 19a-200 (a) also provides in relevant part: "In case of the absence or inability to act of a city, town ₂₃₀or borough director of health or if a vacancy exists in the office of such director, the appointing authority of such city, town or borough may, with the approval of the [Commissioner of Public Health], designate in writing a suitable person to serve as acting director of health during the period of such absence or inability or vacancy …. The person so designated, when sworn, shall have all the powers and be subject to all the duties of such director. …"

To discharge its statutory responsibilities under the statute, "the customary process within the [department’s division of] the OLHA was to review a letter from a municipality or a distinct board of health appointing an individual to a permanent or acting director of health [position]. Once the OLHA received the appointment letter from a municipality or the district board of health, [Estrada] would review the appointed individual’s resume to ensure that it stated that the individual had a graduate degree from an accredited school." "Once [Estrada] reviewed the appointment letter and resume, she would then draft a letter for Blaschinski’s review stating that the [department] approved the appointment. After Blaschinski reviewed the letter, she would send it [to] the commissioner of [the department] for [the commissioner’s] review."

In May, 2015, Raul Pino, then director of health of the city of Hartford, submitted a letter requesting approval of Ruonan Wang as the city’s acting director of health. Both the letter and Wang’s resume stated that Wang held a master’s degree in public health from the University of Connecticut. Estrada reviewed the request, including Wang’s resume, and she drafted a letter approving the appointment for Blaschinski’s review.³ ₂₃₁Estrada did not, however, verify that Wang had actually received a master’s degree in public health. The letter was ultimately signed by the commissioner of the department, approving Wang’s appointment as acting director of health for the city of Hartford.

Approximately one month later, a department employee notified Estrada that she had received information from an employee of the city of Hartford that Wang did not hold a master’s degree in public health. After Estrada confirmed that Wang did not have a master’s degree in public health, she notified Blaschinski, and Wang was removed from the position.

Estrada was required to log complaints and track them. Estrada had previously struggled with this task, and her performance improvement plan noted the need for her to improve in that area. When Blaschinski asked for a copy of the Wang complaint, however, she learned that Estrada had not logged it in. Nevertheless, Estrada was not disciplined by Blaschinski. Approximately one week following the Wang incident, Estrada again failed to check the credentials for the appointment of a municipality’s acting director of health, this time for the town of Monroe. When Blaschinski learned of the repeated error, she issued Estrada a letter of reprimand.

In September, 2015, Blaschinski issued Estrada an unsatisfactory annual rating. About two months later, Blaschinski issued Estrada another letter of reprimand based on two incidents that reflected Estrada’s ongoing resistance to her performance improvement plan. On the basis of these continued issues, Blaschinski gave Estrada an unsatisfactory interim service rating. Estrada received another unsatisfactory rating in her 2016 annual review, based in part on concerns over Estrada’s handling of a complaint about a different town health director.

₂₃₂After being on a performance improvement plan for approximately two years, Estrada was ultimately demoted from epidemiologist 4 to epidemiologist 3. In sum, Estrada received three adverse personnel actions: the reprimand following the Wang and town of Monroe incidents, the second reprimand in November, 2015, and her demotion. Estrada grieved these personnel actions in accordance with her collective bargaining agreement pursuant to § 4-61dd (e) (3) but did not raise a whistleblower retaliation claim in the forum provided by that agreement. All the grievances were denied. In addition to fil- ing the grievances, Estrada filed a whistleblower retaliation claim under § 4-61dd (e) (2) (A), based on the same personnel actions, with the commission.

In Estrada’s amended complaint before the commission, she alleged that her report to Blaschinski, which stated that Wang did not possess a graduate degree in public health, disclosed a violation of § 19a-200 because the statute requires that a person nominated for the position of acting director of health hold a graduate degree in public health. She alleged that this new information constituted a protected whistleblower disclosure pursuant to § 4-61dd. Estrada further claimed that, after her report to Blaschinski, she was subjected to retaliation on multiple occasions. Estrada alleged that, in response to her disclosure, she received multiple "unwarranted and unjustified written reprimand[s]" and "negative and unsatisfactory performance appraisal[s]," and that she was demoted from the position of epidemiologist 4 to epidemiologist 3.

Following a hearing, the referee concluded that Estrada had made a protected whistleblower disclosure under § 4-61dd and that the department had retaliated against her. The department appealed to the Superior Court, which sustained the appeal and rendered judgment for the department. The trial court concluded that the commission₂₃₃ lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint, that Estrada had not made a protected whistleblower disclosure under § 4-61dd, and that Estrada had failed to establish a causal connection between any alleged whistleblower disclosure and the alleged retaliation. Thereafter, the commission appealed to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the commission had jurisdiction but nevertheless affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the merits. Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, supra, 211 Conn. App. at 226, 247, 271 A.3d 1042. It concluded that, because § 19a-200 does not require an acting director of health to possess a graduate degree, Estrada’s report about Wang’s credentials did not disclose any violation of state law to which § 4-61dd applies. Id., at 245-46, 271 A.3d...