Court Rulings

ISCO Industries, Inc. appeals the circuit court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a suit its former employee, Daniel Lee Davis, brought against it following a data breach. ISCO contends the circuit court erred in determining an arbitration agreement did not apply due to the unforeseeable and outrageous tort exception and because Davis's negligence claim did not arise out of or relate to his employment relationship with ISCO. We affirm.

Amended Opinion - Published - Justice McKinnon, affirmed.

The defendant attorney appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court reprimanding him for violations of the rules of practice and the Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with misconduct involv- ing his IOLTA account. The plaintiff, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, filed a presentment alleging the misconduct after a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee found that there was probable cause that the defendant had violated various provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules of practice. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the presentment complaint on the grounds that it was untimely because the reviewing committee took more than ninety days to render its final written decision, in contravention of the applicable statute (§ 51-90g (c)) and rule of practice (§ 2-35 (i)), and because the reviewing committee had considered allegations of misconduct beyond the scope of its probable cause determination. Held: 1. The trial court did not err when it refused to dismiss the presentment complaint due to the reviewing committee's failure to issue a final written decision within ninety days of its determination of probable cause; the failure of the reviewing committee to abide by the time frames established in § 51-90g (c) and Practice Book § 2-35 (i) did not divest the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the disciplinary action, as § 51-90g (c) and Practice Book § 2-35 (m) provide that the reviewing committee's untimeliness did not require dismissal of the presentment complaint. 2. The trial court did nor err when it refused to dismiss the presentment complaint because the reviewing committee considered allegations out- side the scope of its probable cause determination; the applicable rule of practice (§ 2-35 (d) (1)) expressly provides that the disciplinary coun- sel may add additional allegations of misconduct before the reviewing committee holds a hearing on the alleged misconduct. Argued

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the allegedly wrongful termina- tion of his employment by N Co., which operated a helicopter flight training school, claiming that J, the owner of N Co., in violation of statute (§ 31-73 (b)), had demanded 50 percent of future proceeds from a separate flight examination business the plaintiff sought to undertake as a condition of his continued at-will employment as N Co.'s chief flight instructor. The Federal Aviation Administration had approached the plaintiff about an open independent flight examiner position and the possibility of the plaintiff starting his own business as a certified FAA flight examiner. The plaintiff and J viewed the opportunity as a positive development for the plaintiff and for N Co. The plaintiff thereafter approached J about a loan to cover the costs related to a training program the plaintiff had to attend to obtain FAA flight examiner certification. J expressed willingness to loan the plaintiff the money if the plaintiff would remit to N Co. any examination fees he would later receive, until the loan was paid off, and agree to share equally with N Co. all examination fees he would thereafter collect. The plaintiff did not respond to J's proposals and did not take a loan from J. The plaintiff later explained in a text message to R, J's wife and an employee of N Co., that he had paid the costs of the training program because he wanted to keep his employment with N Co. and his new flight examina- tion business separate. R responded to the plaintiff, stating that J had said that he should clean out his desk and that he no longer worked for N Co. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted N Co.'s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed facts did not raise a genuine issue of material fact that N Co. violated the public policy underlying § 31-73 (b), which prohibits employers from demanding money from employees as a condition of continued employme