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

2,427 chars

because it deprive[s] the trial court of jurisdiction to
          hear his complaint. . . . In addition, when a plaintiff
          fail[s] to follow the administrative route prescribed by
          the legislature for his claim . . . the plaintiff fails to
          exhaust his or her administrative remedies.’’ (Citations
          omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Burnham
          v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 252 Conn. 153, 168–69, 745 A.2d
          178 (2000); see also Campbell v. Plymouth, 74 Conn.
          App. 67, 82, 811 A.2d 243 (2002) (‘‘Administrative adjudi-
          cations can provide an opportunity for successful reso-
          lution of disputes without the time and costs associated
          with litigation. They also serve to reduce the burden
          on judicial resources. It therefore makes sense to toll
          a statute of limitation to allow parties to attempt to
          resolve their disputes first by administrative means. A
          valid administrative remedy, however, must provide for
          ‘meaningful relief,’ otherwise litigation is merely post-
          poned.’’).
             Because the federal act provides statutory adminis-
          trative remedies to employees raising claims either
          ‘‘under’’ or ‘‘related to’’ that act; see 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c)
          (1) (2018); we must consider the nature of the plaintiff’s
          health district complaint. First, the plaintiff’s complaint
          was not made under the act, in that it was not filed
          with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
          (OSHA), but rather with the municipal health district.
          As to whether the plaintiff’s claim was related to the
          federal act, we consider the federal regulations. Title 29
          of the 2024 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations,
          § 1977.1, provides in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he Occupa-
          tional Safety and Health Act of 1970 . . . is a Federal
          statute of general application designed to regulate
          employment conditions relating to occupational safety
          and health and to achieve safer and healthier work-
          places throughout the Nation.’’
            Title 29 of the 2024 edition of the Code of Federal
          Regulations, § 1977.9, provides guidance regarding
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text