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

2,427 chars

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-
          tion of remedies claim. The subject matter jurisdiction
          issue was raised by the department in a motion to dis-
June 11, 2024            CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 29

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text