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

2,304 chars

ment’s conclusion with respect to this grievance was
       that the decision to demote Estrada had been ‘‘for just
       cause,’’ there was ‘‘no contract violation,’’ and, there-
       fore, ‘‘the grievance must be denied.’’
           Because Estrada’s grievances did not raise a claim
       of whistleblower retaliation, they do not fall within the
       ambit of the alternative remedies scheme in § 4-61dd
       (e) (3). Thus, the mutual exclusivity provision of § 4-
       61dd was not triggered, and Estrada was not barred
       from filing a complaint with the commission alleging
       whistleblower retaliation pursuant to § 4-61dd (e) (2)
       (A). The commission had the authority to adjudicate
       the type of controversy before it and, therefore, had
       subject matter jurisdiction over the action, regardless
       of its merits. See, e.g., Amodio v. Amodio, supra, 247
       Conn. 727–28. As the Appellate Court correctly noted,
       ‘‘[t]here is no dispute that § 4-61dd contains a waiver
       of sovereign immunity and confers on the [commission]
       the authority to adjudicate the type of controversy pre-
       sented in this case: a whistleblower retaliation claim.
       The fact that the statute also provides for an ‘alternative’
       avenue for a complainant to seek redress for adverse
       personnel actions taken in retaliation for a whis-
       tleblower disclosure; General Statutes [Rev. to 2017]
       § 4-61dd (e) (3); does not deprive the [O]ffice of [P]ublic
       [H]earings of subject matter jurisdiction [over] the
       claim.’’ Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, supra, 211
       Conn. App. 238.
         We agree with the Appellate Court that the proper
       avenue for addressing allegedly duplicative claims
       under § 4-61dd is a special defense raising an election
       of remedies claim. See id., 238–39. ‘‘As a general rule,
       facts must be pleaded as a special defense when they
       are consistent with the allegations of the complaint
       but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no
       cause of action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
       Coughlin v. Anderson, 270 Conn. 487, 501, 853 A.2d 460
Page 24                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text