have addressed the issue. Several jurisdictions have foUowed the approach used by the United States Supreme Court in the Bivens line of cases, and have based their decisions on the presence or absence of alternative remedial schemes. See, e.g., Dick Fischer Dev. No. 2, Inc. v. Dep’t of Admin., 838 P.2d 263 (Alaska 1992) (expressing reluctance to extend Bivens to the realm of state constitutional violations except in cases of flagrant constitutional violations where Uttle or no alternative remedies are available); Gay Law Students Ass’n v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 24 Cal.3d 458, 156 Cal.Rptr. 14, 595 P.2d 592 (1979) (finding an impUed cause of action appropriate because of absence of other remedies); Kelley Property Dev. v. Town of Lebanon, 226 Conn. 314, 627 A.2d 909 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Schreiner v. McKenzie Tank Lines & Risk
holding that court would not imply a statutory cause of action for employers interference in employees assertion of claim for compensation holding that when there are no other remedies it is appropriate for the courts to imply one under the state constitution holding that because of statutory remedial scheme court would not imply a cause of action arising directly under the state constitution recognizing the cause of action recognizing exception under state constitution