143 Conn. App. 839
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Saeedi, a physician at Connecticut Valley Hospital, reported concerns about another doctor’s poor patient care and escalated complaints in 2007.
- In August 2007, the hospital began a series of adverse personnel actions against Saeedi, including transfers, suspensions, and a tainted annual appraisal, allegedly in retaliation for whistle-blowing.
- Saeedi filed a whistle-blower retaliation complaint under § 4-61dd with the Chief Human Rights Referee on October 16, 2008; the department answered denying retaliation.
- Plaintiffs moved to dismiss in May 2010, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to union grievances and untimeliness; referee denied the motion and the trial proceeded.
- Referee found continuing course of conduct tolled the 30-day filing period and concluded Saeedi proved retaliation; remedies included back pay, damages, a revised appraisal, and ethics training.
- Superior Court adopted the referee’s reasoning; on appeal, the court held the 30-day period is not jurisdictional, but accessible to tolling; ethics training liability was contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 30-day period is jurisdictional | Saeedi waived timely filing; period is jurisdictional | Period tolled by continuing course of conduct | Not jurisdictional; tolling applies |
| Continuing course of conduct tolling | Tolling valid; timely filing after tolling | Tolling not applicable | Yes, tolling applies |
| Election of remedies via union grievances | Union grievances barred referee handling; exclusive remedy chosen | Remedies under § 4-61dd remain available; no waiver of jurisdiction | Claim dismissed for want of distinct appellate issue; merits not addressed |
| Referee's authority to order ethics training and to revise Saeedi's appraisal | Ethics training beyond § 4-61dd remedies; appraisal revision improper | Remedial authority supports both actions as part of returning employee to status quo | Ethics training order reversed; appraisal revision upheld as within power |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 257 Conn. 258 (Conn. 2001) (statutory time limits and jurisdictional intent)
- Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 299 Conn. 346 (Conn. 2010) (appeal periods and jurisdictional considerations)
- Bridgeport Hospitals v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 232 Conn. 91 (Conn. 1995) (remedies and scope of CHRO authority)
- Grant v. Bassman, 221 Conn. 465 (Conn. 1992) (exclusive remedies and subject matter jurisdiction distinction)
- HUD/Barbour-Waverly v. Wilson, 235 Conn. 650 (Conn. 1995) (policy of promptness and finality in appeal periods)
- Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 226 Conn. 757 (Conn. 1993) (remedial construction and scope of CHRO remedies)
- Pizzuto v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 283 Conn. 257 (Conn. 2007) (remedial statute interpretation)