Appellate Court Opens Doors Wider for Whistleblowers

The following article was first published on Shipman & Goodwin attorney Dan Schwartz’ Connecticut Employment Law Blog. It is reposted here with permission.

---

A recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision should raise the eyebrows for every employer in the food service and hospitality industry.

The case, Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki LLC, officially released last month, allowed a retaliatory discharge claim to proceed when an employee complained to a municipal health district about unsanitary conditions at her workplace.

While the decision does not represent a dramatic shift in Connecticut’s whistleblower law, it clarifies when employees can proceed directly to court—and serves as yet another reminder that retaliation claims remain among the most difficult for employers to defend.

The Facts and the Legal Question

Corie Gentile-Riaz worked at Midway Pizza in Groton. In April 2022, she emailed the Ledge Light Health District describing numerous alleged health code violations—rodent problems, employees smoking in the kitchen, improper food storage, and an owner using the same knife to cut raw and cooked chicken.

She stated she was “concerned for people’s health” and worried customers could get sick.

An inspector visited on April 12, 2022, and apparently disclosed who made the complaint. The next day, she was fired.

Because the complaint touched only upon general public health, no OSHA exhaustion was required.

The employer moved to dismiss, arguing she should have exhausted administrative remedies with OSHA before suing under Connecticut’s whistleblower statute, General Statutes Section 31-51m.

The trial court agreed, but the Appellate Court reversed—finding that her complaint focused on public health concerns (customer safety) rather than occupational safety (her own working conditions).

Because her complaint touched only upon general public health, no OSHA exhaustion was required.

Is This a Dramatic Shift? Not Really.

Regular readers will recognize that Gentile-Riaz fits within established Connecticut precedent.

Way back in 2007, I wrote about Van Kruiningen v. Plan B LLC, where employees claimed they were terminated for reporting a supervisor’s liquor law violations.

The court found that complaints about violations affecting the public could give rise to wrongful discharge claims.

Employees whose complaints focus on public health rather than workplace safety may proceed directly to court.

I noted then that “for employers in the food-services industry, the decision takes on some added significance” because complaints about other employees’ violations could be protected activity.

Similarly, in 2013 I discussed how broadly courts interpret “public body” under Section 31-51m—even an ombudsman could qualify.

The Gentile-Riaz court’s acceptance of a local health district as a public body is consistent with that broad interpretation.

What is new is the clarification on exhaustion: employees whose complaints focus on public health rather than workplace safety may proceed directly to court. But the underlying protections have long existed.

Timing Is Everything

If there is one theme running through retaliation cases on this blog, it is that timing matters.

Courts have held that temporal proximity between a complaint and termination must be “very close” to support an inference of causation. A year-long gap typically defeats such claims.

Courts have held that temporal proximity between a complaint and termination must be “very close.”

Here, the employee complained on April 11. The inspector visited April 12. She was fired April 13.

That is about as close as temporal proximity gets—and exactly the kind of facts that are likely to survive a dismissal request and reach a jury.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

The takeaways are not new, but Gentile-Riaz provides another reason to revisit your practices:

Investigate complaints thoroughly. When an employee raises health or safety concerns, take them seriously. Document your findings and actions. As I wrote in 2007: “Investigate even the half-baked complaints. If an employee takes the time to complain about ‘illegal actions’ then you take the time to make an investigation.”

Watch the timing. Before terminating anyone who has recently made a complaint, pause. Document legitimate performance concerns separately. Make a written finding that the complaints were investigated and played no part in the decision.

Compare treatment. Ask how you have treated similarly situated employees. Past precedent indicates whether your decision is fair.

Maintain open communication. Employees who feel heard internally may be less likely to go to outside agencies. Treating a complaining employee as a pariah typically makes matters worse.

Understand protected activity is broad. Employees are protected when reporting concerns about violations affecting the public—not just their own safety.

Conclusion

The case has been remanded for trial.

The employer may ultimately prevail on the merits, but it must now defend the case rather than dismiss it on procedural grounds.

The best defense is prevention.

That is the broader lesson. Whistleblower cases can be difficult to dismiss, expensive to litigate, and unpredictable at trial.

The best defense is prevention: take complaints seriously, investigate fairly, and avoid letting retaliation become a plausible explanation for an employment decision.

Make sure your supervisors understand that complaints about public health concerns are most likely protected, that retaliation is unlawful, and that the timing of adverse actions matters.

---

About the author: Dan Schwartz is a partner at Shipman & Goodwin and has decades of experience solving complex, employment law problems for companies.