Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)

Citation: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Parent Document: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131752/dept-of-public-health-v-estrada/ ↗

Full Text

2,476 chars

The following additional facts and procedural history
          are relevant to this claim. In addition to filing its answer
          to Estrada’s amended whistleblower retaliation com-
          plaint, the department also asserted numerous special
          defenses, including that ‘‘[t]he [commission] lacks sub-
          ject matter jurisdiction over this complaint, as [Estrada]
          fail[ed] to make a valid claim of whistleblower retalia-
          tion, as required by . . . § 4-61dd.’’ The department
          also filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike in which it
          argued, among other things, that the commission lacked
          ‘‘jurisdiction to hear a whistleblower claim for any of
          [Estrada’s] alleged[ly] adverse personnel actions for
          which she has filed a grievance under her collective
          bargaining contract . . . because the two remedies are
          mutually exclusive,’’ and that Estrada’s claims did not
          ‘‘fall under the purview of . . . § 4-61dd and [were]
          therefore barred by sovereign immunity.’’ This motion
          was denied by the referee. In its posthearing brief, the
          department reiterated these arguments related to sub-
          ject matter jurisdiction.
             The referee concluded that the commission had sub-
          ject matter jurisdiction over Estrada’s whistleblower
          retaliation complaint. On appeal, the trial court concluded
          that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction,
          reasoning that, because § 4-61dd ‘‘clearly provides a
          mutually exclusive choice in this regard, [Estrada was]
          precluded from relitigating the propriety of the same
          personnel actions before the [referee]. The statute
          offered [Estrada] a clear choice of either filing griev-
          ances or bringing the [present whistleblower retalia-
          tion] case to address the personnel actions, but not
          both.’’ The Appellate Court ultimately rejected the
          department’s jurisdictional argument, reasoning that
          ‘‘the department attempts to transform an election of
          remedies claim into an issue of subject matter jurisdic-
          move one further step in the cause . . . as any movement is necessarily
          the exercise of jurisdiction’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text