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

2,481 chars

in the plaintiff’s complaint does she reference a concern
          regarding her own health. Thus, we conclude that the
          plaintiff’s complaints ‘‘touch[ed] only upon general pub-
          lic safety and health’’ rather than conditions at the work-
          place. See 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 (2024).
             We reach the same conclusion upon examination of
          the plaintiff’s complaint filed in the Superior Court. The
          plaintiff captioned her claim as alleging a violation of
          § 31-51m and asserted therein that the defendants retali-
          ated against her following her report to the health dis-
          trict after she had ‘‘witnessed numerous health code
          violations throughout her employment . . . and was
          concerned for the public’s safety.’’ Nowhere in the plain-
          tiff’s complaint does she reference occupational safety
          or health.
            The defendants’ focus is on one allegation in the
          plaintiff’s health district complaint, namely, the floor
          mats in the restaurant. We acknowledge that the floor
          mats could relate to employee safety, however, we
          decline to focus exclusively on that one allegation
          where the substance of the complaint as a whole relates
          to public health. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s health
          district complaint was that conditions and practices in
          the restaurant are a threat to public health, and the
          plaintiff’s Superior Court complaint alleges that the
          defendants retaliated against the plaintiff on the basis
          of her report. Cf. Metropolitan District v. Commission
          on Human Rights & Opportunities, 180 Conn. App.
          478, 512, 184 A.3d 287 (because gravamen of plaintiff’s
          complaint was that defendant acted in contravention
          of statutory and regulatory obligations, plaintiff could
          not bypass exhaustion requirement by including variety
          of requests in prayer for relief, noting that analysis
            We agree with the plaintiff that her references to smoking in her health
          district complaint did not necessitate exhaustion of administrative remedies.
          The plaintiff made no reference to her own health but rather complained
          about smoking in the context of food preparation and service.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text