STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; LITIGATION; HEALTH DEPARTMENT;

HEALTH, CT DEPT OF;

Connecticut laws/regulations;

You asked for information on lawsuits brought against the Department of Public Health (DPH) over the past-five years, particularly those brought by employees of the agency.

The law requires those who wish to sue the state to go to the claims commissioner unless their case falls within an exception established by law. They must file their claim within one year after their claim accrues. The claim accrues on the date the damage or injury is sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered. But no claim may be presented more than three years after the date of the act or event complained of (CGS § 4-148).

The law excepts: (1) claims for the periodic payment of disability, pensions, retirement, or other employment benefits; (2) claims for tax refunds; (3) claims for which an administrative hearing procedure is established by law; (4) requests by political subdivisions for the payments of grants in lieu of taxes; and (5) claims that the law allows to go directly to court (CGS § 4-142)

There are six statutes that allow classes of people to sue the state directly without first going to the claims commissioner, one of which involves DPH. This statute is CGS § 19a-24, which allows people to sue the commissioners of Public Health and Mental Retardation, their staffs, and certain other, related entities for officials acts or omissions if the damage claims exceed $ 7,500.

We contacted the Attorney General’s office and the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) concerning your question. We have not yet received information from the Attorney General’s office; we will provide you with this information at a later date.

Since 1998, CHRO reports 24 cases in which a DPH employee has brought a complaint against the department. These cases generally involve claims of wrongful actions concerning discharge, retaliation, demotion, promotion, sexual harassment, hiring, terms and conditions of employment or other work-related issues based on race, color, sex, mental or physical disability, national origin, alienage, or marital status.

Attachment 1 provides a summary of the CHRO cases, including their closure or “RFR” (request for reconsideration) status. The reference in this attachment to “Merit Assessment Review/No possibility of Reasonable…” should read in full as “No Possibility of Reasonable Cause Finding Upon Further Investigation. ”

Attachment 2 provides more detailed information on a particular case involving a monetary award.

JK: ts