Second, the plaintiff’s specific allegations overwhelm-
ingly focused on improper food storage, preparation,
and safety. The plaintiff repeatedly stated her concern
that customers would get sick from the improper food
safety and handwashing procedures. This focus on the
customers included her complaints about smoking,
which related to food safety in that the plaintiff alleged
that she had seen ashes on customers’ food.2 Nowhere
2
The defendants contend that the plaintiff’s references in her health dis-
trict complaint to smoking in the workplace alleged violations of General
Statutes § 31-40q (b), which requires that ‘‘[e]ach employer shall prohibit
smoking . . . in any area of any business facility under said employer’s
control.’’ The defendants argue that the plaintiff had a statutory administra-
tive remedy for retaliation following claims of violations of § 31-40q under
Connecticut’s Occupational Safety and Health Act, General Statutes § 31-
367 et seq.
General Statutes § 31-379 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) No person shall
discharge, discipline, penalize or in any manner discriminate against any
employee . . . because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted
or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chap-
ter . . . .
‘‘(b) Any employee who believes that such employee has been discharged,
disciplined, penalized or otherwise discriminated against by any person in
violation of subsection (a) of this section may, not later than one hundred
eighty days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the commis-
sioner alleging such violation. Upon receipt of such complaint the commis-
sioner shall hold a hearing in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54.
‘‘(c) The commissioner may award an aggrieved employee all appropriate
relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to the employee’s
former position, back pay and reestablishment of any employee benefits to
which the employee would otherwise have been eligible if such violation
had not occurred. The commissioner shall award a prevailing employee
such employee’s costs, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees to be deter-
mined by the commissioner.
‘‘(d) Any party aggrieved by the commissioner’s decision under subsection
(c) of this section may appeal the decision to the Superior Court in accor-
dance with the provisions of chapter 54.’’
The plaintiff responds: ‘‘(1) the plaintiff did not exercise any rights under
§ 31-40q, because her complaints concerning smoking were specifically in
reference to its impact on food preparation and service; (2) § 31-40q does
not provide any administrative remedies nor does it provide a private right
of action to an employee; (3) the only enforcement provision applying to § 31-
40q is [General Statutes] § 31-50, which only indicates that the ‘commissioner
shall enforce the provisions’ but does not provide a private remedy; and (4)
§ 31-379 only applies to chapter 571 of title 31, which is the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, but [§] 31-40q is in a separate chapter.’’
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0