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

2,323 chars

after Estrada filed her grievances in accordance with
       her collective bargaining agreement, the commission
       lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her whistle-
       blower retaliation claim because the legislature did not
       waive sovereign immunity for this second action, given
       that both actions arose from the same underlying facts.
       The commission disagrees and contends that, because
       the Appellate Court correctly concluded that § 4-61dd
       ‘‘confers on the [O]ffice of [P]ublic [H]earings the
       authority to adjudicate the type of controversy pre-
       sented in this case’’; Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada,
       supra, 211 Conn. App. 238; the commission had subject
       matter jurisdiction over Estrada’s whistleblower retali-
       ation claim. The commission also agrees with the Appel-
       late Court that a choice of remedy under § 4-61dd raises
       an election of remedies issue, not a subject matter juris-
       dictional one.
          The question of when the alternative remedies in § 4-
       61dd apply is a question of statutory interpretation over
       which we exercise plenary review. See, e.g., Dept. of
       Transportation v. White Oak Corp., 287 Conn. 1, 7, 946
       A.2d 1219 (2008). Accordingly, we review § 4-61dd in
       accordance with General Statutes § 1-2z and our famil-
       iar principles of statutory construction. See, e.g., Sena
       v. American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc.,
       333 Conn. 30, 45–46, 213 A.3d 1110 (2019).
          We begin with subdivision (1) of § 4-61dd (e), which
       provides in relevant part that ‘‘[n]o state officer or
       employee . . . shall take or threaten to take any per-
       sonnel action against any state or quasi-public agency
       employee . . . in retaliation for (A) such employee’s
       . . . disclosure of information to . . . (ii) an employee
       of the state agency or quasi-public agency where such
       state officer or employee is employed . . . .’’ (Empha-
       sis added.) The disclosure that is protected under § 4-
       61dd is one related to ‘‘any matter involving corruption,
       unethical practices, violation of state laws or regula-
Page 16                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text