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

2,313 chars

The Appellate Court has addressed the same issue
       with regard to whistleblower retaliation claims. In Com-
       missioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v.
       Saeedi, supra, 143 Conn. App. 839, the defendant employee
       filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the
       Office of Public Hearings in which he alleged that he
       had been subjected to retaliation for making a whis-
       tleblower disclosure pursuant to § 4-61dd. Id., 845. The
       plaintiffs filed, among other things, a motion to dismiss
       in which they alleged that the Office of Public Hearings
       did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the
       defendant had filed grievances through his union and,
       therefore, had elected to pursue his remedies though
       his collective bargaining agreement. Id., 846. On appeal
       to the Appellate Court, the plaintiffs argued ‘‘that [the
       defendant’s] use of the grievance process served to
       invalidate [the defendant’s] claims because he chose to
       pursue them through the forum provided by the collec-
       tive bargaining agreement. . . . [The plaintiffs]
       claim[ed] that [the defendant’s] claims should have
       been dismissed because § 4-61dd requires the employee
       to elect an exclusive forum in which to pursue these
       claims, and [the defendant] elected his exclusive forum
       when his union filed its grievances.’’ (Footnote omitted;
       internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 855–56. The
       Appellate Court declined to review the plaintiffs’ claim
       because it was raised for the first time on appeal. See id.,
       856–57. The court stated, however, that ‘‘[t]he plaintiffs’
       abandonment of their jurisdictional argument [was]
       unsurprising considering [this court’s] holding in Grant
       v. Bassman, [supra, 221 Conn. 472].’’ Commissioner of
       Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Saeedi, supra,
       856 n.16.
         Here, the department pleaded special defenses in its
       answer to Estrada’s complaint. It also pleaded special
       defenses in response to Estrada’s amended complaint.
       None of these special defenses, however, raised an elec-
Page 26                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text