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

tion of remedies claim. The subject matter jurisdiction
          issue was raised by the department in a motion to dis-
          miss and/or strike. When an employee elects to pursue
          one of the avenues provided for in § 4-61dd and then
          subsequently proceeds to pursue the second avenue,
          the issue concerns the employee’s election of remedies,
          not subject matter jurisdiction. Estrada’s complaint to
          the commission, even if it was filed after the initial
          grievance process, did not create a lack of subject mat-
          ter jurisdiction. Instead, it may have resulted in ‘‘a want
          of a cause of action’’; (emphasis omitted; internal quota-
          tion marks omitted) Grant v. Bassman, supra, 221
          Conn. 472; which the department could have raised in
          a special defense. See id., 473. The department should
          have pleaded its election of remedies argument as a
          special defense if it wished to make such a claim. In
          failing to do so, it has waived that issue.
             Accordingly, we conclude that the commission had
          subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whis-
          tleblower retaliation claim.
                                         II
                                    WAIVER
             The department next raises two waiver arguments.
          First, the department argues that the commission
          waived and abandoned its merits arguments by failing
          to raise and brief all but one of them before this court,
          rendering that aspect of this appeal moot. Second, the
          department argues that the one merits issue the com-
          mission does address in its brief was also abandoned
          because the commission had failed to raise or brief
          that issue before the Appellate Court. Specifically, the
          department contends that the lower courts sustained
          its appeal on several merits grounds: ‘‘(1) Estrada’s
          report concerned misconduct in municipal government
          to which § 4-61dd does not apply; (2) Estrada’s report
          did not concern a violation of state law by Wang, the
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 27

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text