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

2,416 chars

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
          (2004). We have held that an election of remedies claim
June 11, 2024            CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 27

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text