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

2,506 chars

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
          have done so. Cf. State v. Heredia, 310 Conn. 742, 761,
June 11, 2024            CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 25

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text