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

2,334 chars

to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (fed-
       eral act), which was designed ‘‘to assure so far as possi-
       ble every working man and woman in the Nation safe
       and healthful working conditions and to preserve our
       human resources . . . .’’ 29 U.S.C. § 651 (b) (2018).
       Title 29 of the United States Code, § 660 (c) (1), prohib-
       its the discharge or discrimination against an employee
       for exercising their rights under the federal act. Section
       660 (c) provides in relevant part: ‘‘No person shall dis-
       charge or in any manner discriminate against any
       employee because such employee has filed any com-
       plaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any pro-
       ceeding under or related to this chapter . . . .’’
       (Emphasis added.) 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c) (1) (2018). Sub-
       section (c) (2) of 29 U.S.C. § 660 provides a statutory
       administrative remedy for employees who allege that
       they were discharged in retaliation for reporting viola-
       tions of the federal act. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c)
       (2), an employee who believes that he was discharged
       in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c) (1) may file a complaint
       with the Secretary of Labor within thirty days following
       the discharge. If the Secretary of Labor determines that
       the employee was discharged in retaliation for filing a
       complaint under or related to the federal act, the
       employee may pursue an action against the employer
       in federal court. 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c) (2) (2018). The court
       possesses jurisdiction to ‘‘restrain violations of [29
       U.S.C. § 660 (c) (1)] and order all appropriate relief
       including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to
       his former position with back pay.’’ 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c)
       (2) (2018).
          Section 31-51m requires that a party exhaust all avail-
       able administrative remedies before pursuing a civil
       action. ‘‘When a plaintiff has available to him adminis-
       trative remedies that could have afforded him meaning-
       ful relief . . . [h]is failure to [properly pursue those
       remedies] forecloses his access to judicial relief,
Page 10                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text