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

2,449 chars

The following additional facts and procedural history
         are relevant to this claim. In addition to filing its answer
         to Estrada’s amended whistleblower retaliation com-
         plaint, the department also asserted numerous special
         defenses, including that ‘‘[t]he [commission] lacks sub-
         ject matter jurisdiction over this complaint, as [Estrada]
         fail[ed] to make a valid claim of whistleblower retalia-
         tion, as required by . . . § 4-61dd.’’ The department
         also filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike in which it
         argued, among other things, that the commission lacked
         ‘‘jurisdiction to hear a whistleblower claim for any of
         [Estrada’s] alleged[ly] adverse personnel actions for
         which she has filed a grievance under her collective
         bargaining contract . . . because the two remedies are
         mutually exclusive,’’ and that Estrada’s claims did not
         ‘‘fall under the purview of . . . § 4-61dd and [were]
         therefore barred by sovereign immunity.’’ This motion
         was denied by the referee. In its posthearing brief, the
         department reiterated these arguments related to sub-
         ject matter jurisdiction.
            The referee concluded that the commission had sub-
         ject matter jurisdiction over Estrada’s whistleblower
         retaliation complaint. On appeal, the trial court concluded
         that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction,
         reasoning that, because § 4-61dd ‘‘clearly provides a
         mutually exclusive choice in this regard, [Estrada was]
         precluded from relitigating the propriety of the same
         personnel actions before the [referee]. The statute
         offered [Estrada] a clear choice of either filing griev-
         ances or bringing the [present whistleblower retalia-
         tion] case to address the personnel actions, but not
         both.’’ The Appellate Court ultimately rejected the
         department’s jurisdictional argument, reasoning that
         ‘‘the department attempts to transform an election of
         remedies claim into an issue of subject matter jurisdic-
         move one further step in the cause . . . as any movement is necessarily
         the exercise of jurisdiction’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Page 16                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text