Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)

Citation: Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)
Parent Document: Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10758261/gentile-riaz-v-samo-thraki-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,367 chars

action because she failed to exhaust administrative rem-
         edies before filing her action in Superior Court. We
         agree with the plaintiff.
            We first set forth relevant legal principles. Connecti-
         cut’s whistleblower statute, § 31-51m, protects an
         ‘‘employee from retaliatory discharge when the employee
         has complained, in good faith, about a suspected viola-
         tion of a state or federal law or regulation.’’ (Footnote
         omitted.) Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 506–
         507, 831 A.2d 260, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932, 837 A.2d
         804 (2003). Section 31-51m (b) provides in relevant part:
         ‘‘No employer shall discharge, discipline or otherwise
         penalize any employee because . . . the employee
         . . . reports, verbally or in writing, a violation or a
         suspected violation of any state or federal law or regula-
         tion or any municipal ordinance or regulation to a public
         body . . . .’’ Subsection (c) provides in relevant part:
         ‘‘Any employee who is discharged, disciplined or other-
         wise penalized by his employer in violation of the provi-
         sions of subsection (b) may, after exhausting all avail-
         able administrative remedies, bring a civil action, within
         ninety days of the date of the final administrative deter-
         mination or within ninety days of such violation, which-
         ever is later, in the superior court for the judicial district
         where the violation is alleged to have occurred or where
         the employer has its principal office, for the reinstate-
         ment of his previous job, payment of back wages and
         reestablishment of employee benefits to which he
         would have otherwise been entitled if such violation
         had not occurred. An employee’s recovery from any
         such action shall be limited to such items, provided
         the court may allow to the prevailing party his costs,
         together with reasonable attorney’s fees to be taxed by
         the court. . . .’’ General Statutes § 31-51m (c).
           In concluding that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust
         available administrative remedies, the trial court looked
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 9

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text