Section 4-61dd

Citation: Section 4-61dd
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

2,397 chars

immunity only with respect to a single action or arbi-
       tration wherein all existing disputed claims arising
       under a public works contract must be pursued and
       resolved.’’ (Emphasis added.) Id., 13–14. We found addi-
       tional support for this conclusion in the legislative his-
       tory, which provided that the goal of the legislation was
       to ‘‘increas[e] the quality of construction in the state
       while, at the same time, reducing its cost by permitting
       contractors to sue the state directly to resolve disputed
       claims arising under public works contracts quickly and
       efficiently.’’ Id., 14. We reasoned that, ‘‘[i]f we were to
       construe § 4-61 as a blanket waiver of sovereign immu-
       nity that permits a contractor to file multiple actions
       against the state, the cost to the state of public works
       contracts effectively would increase while, at the same
       time, the speed and efficiency with which such claims
       are resolved effectively would decrease.’’ Id.
          The statute at issue in White Oak Corp. is distinguish-
       able from § 4-61dd. The language in § 4-61 provides in
       relevant part that the plaintiff ‘‘may, in the event of any
       disputed claims under [a public works] contract,’’ bring
       an action in the Superior Court. (Emphasis added.) Gen-
       eral Statutes § 4-61 (a). In contrast, § 4-61dd (e) pro-
       vides in relevant part that a complainant may file a
       complaint with the commission within ninety days of
       ‘‘the specific incident giving rise to a claim that a per-
       sonnel action has been threatened or has occurred in
       violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection . . . .’’
       (Emphasis added.) General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 4-
       61dd (e) (2) (A). Whereas § 4-61 (a) covers ‘‘any dis-
       puted claims,’’ the similar provision in § 4-61dd (e) (2)
       (A) is concerned only with ‘‘a claim that a personnel
       action has been threatened or has occurred in violation
       of’’ the prohibition on whistleblower retaliation. Had
       the legislature intended to enact a statute that subjected
       ‘‘any disputed claims’’ to an alternative remedial scheme
       —rather than identifying one type of claim—it could
Page 22                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text