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

2,277 chars

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
         city of Hartford, or [the department], and Estrada did
         not have a good faith belief to the contrary; (3) if any
Page 30                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text