Posts tagged with "contract"

Contractual Rights for Teachers: An Overview

Contracts for School Teachers

The law of contracts applies to contracts between teachers and school districts. This law includes the concepts of offer, acceptance, mutual assent, and consideration. For a teacher to determine whether a contract exists, he or she should consult authority on the general law of contracts. This section focuses on contract laws specific to teaching and education.

Ratification of Contracts by School Districts

Even if a school official offers a teacher a job and the teacher accepts this offer, many state laws require that the school board ratify the contract before it becomes binding. Thus, even if a principal of a school district informs a prospective teacher that the teacher has been hired, the contract is not final until the school district accepts or ratifies the contract. The same is true if a school district fails to follow proper procedures when determining whether to ratify a contract.

Teacher’s Handbook as a Contract

Some teachers have argued successfully that provisions in a teacher’s handbook granted the teacher certain contractual rights. However, this is not common, as many employee handbooks include clauses stating that the handbook is not a contract. For a provision in a handbook to be legally binding, the teacher must demonstrate that the actions of the teacher and the school district were such that the elements for creating a contract were met.

Breach of Teacher Contract

Either a teacher or a school district can breach a contract. Whether a breach has occurred depends on the facts of the case and the terms of the contract. Breach of contract cases between teachers and school districts arise because a school district has terminated the employment of a teacher, even though the teacher has not violated any of the terms of the employment agreement. In several of these cases, a teacher has taken a leave of absence, which did not violate the employment agreement, and the school district terminated the teacher due to the leave of absence. Similarly, a teacher may breach a contract by resigning from the district before the end of the contract term (usually the end of the school year).

Remedies for Breach of Contract

The usual remedy for a breach of contract between a school district and a teacher is monetary damages. If a school district has breached a contract, the teacher will usually receive the amount the teacher would have received under the contract, less the amount the teacher receives (or could receive) by attaining alternative employment. Other damages, such as the cost to the teacher in finding other employment, may also be available. Non-monetary remedies, such as a court requiring a school district to rehire a teacher or to comply with contract terms, are available in some circumstances, though courts are usually hesitant to order such remedies. If a teacher breaches a contract, damages may be the cost to the school district for finding a replacement. Many contracts contain provisions prescribing the amount of damages a teacher must pay if he or she terminates employment before the end of the contract.

If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any employment law matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.


Source: FindLaw

***All posts for the MayaLaw.com blog are created as a public service for the community. This case overview is intended for informational purposes only, and is not a solicitation of any client.***

Q: Does my Employer Have to Give me Two Weeks Notice that I am Being Laid off?

Generally, your employer does not have an obligation to give you notice before a termination or layoff, or even to a change of control in the company.  However, there are many exceptions to this generalization.   For example, if you are a member of a union your contract probably requires a period of notice before a layoff.  Depending on the circumstances of your case, an exception may apply that may make you eligible for notice from your employer.  It would be best to consult an attorney with experience in employment law to review the facts of your case and your employment contract to determine definitively if notice was required.

If you have any questions related to employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Q: Does my Employer Have to Give me Two Weeks Notice that I am Being Laid off?

Generally, your employer does not have an obligation to give you notice before a termination or layoff, or even to a change of control in the company.  However, there are many exceptions to this generalization.   For example, if you are a member of a union your contract probably requires a period of notice before a layoff.  Depending on the circumstances of your case, an exception may apply that may make you eligible for notice from your employer.  It would be best to consult an attorney with experience in employment law to review the facts of your case and your employment contract to determine definitively if notice was required.

If you have any questions related to employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Federal Court Found Form U-4 and FINRA Rules to Constitute a Sufficient Basis for an Arbitration Agreement Between the Parties

Federal Court Found Form U-4 and FINRA Rules to Constitute a Sufficient Basis for an Arbitration Agreement Between the Parties

Lawrence R. Gilmore v. Scott T. Brandt, 2011 WL 5240421 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2011).

In a recent case before United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Lawrence Gilmore (“Gilmore”) filed a motion to confirm the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award in his favor, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9. Scott Brandt (“Brandt”) responded by filing a motion to vacate the FINRA award pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10. The court granted Gilmore’s motion to confirm the award, entered judgment for the award and denied Brandt’s motion to vacate the award.

The dispute underlying the FINRA arbitration began when Brandt, a representative of Lighthouse Capital Corporation, suggested that Gilmore invest $92,000 in Diversified Lending Group, Inc. (“DLG”). Gilmore made the investment, which was quickly decimated. Gilmore alleged that DLG was a Ponzi scheme and filed a Statement of Claim with FINRA. Rather than seek a stay of arbitration, Brandt contested the issue of arbitrability by appending a statement of jurisdictional objection to his FINRA Arbitration Submission Agreement and raising jurisdictional objections throughout the arbitration proceedings. FINRA appointed a panel of arbitrators to hear the matter; however, the arbitration panel did not directly address Brandt’s jurisdictional objection. In December 2010, the panel issued an arbitration award in Gilmore’s favor for compensatory damages of $106,024.68, post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

In his motion for vacatur, Brandt argued that he never entered into an arbitration agreement with Gilmore; therefore, their dispute should not have been subjected to arbitration. The district court found that Brandt had sufficiently preserved his objection to arbitrability, and that it fell to the court to decide whether the dispute was in fact arbitrable.

Because arbitration is entirely a matter of contract, a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute that it has not agreed to submit to arbitration. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 57 (1995). When Brandt first sought to be licensed to sell securities, he executed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U-4”), which contained a section agreeing “to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm, or a customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of [FINRA].” The court determined that the agreement embodied in Brandt’s Form U-4 would constitute an agreement to arbitrate the dispute with Gilmore only if FINRA rules required this dispute to be arbitrated.

FINRA Rule 12200 is a broad provision that generally applies to any customer dispute arising in connection with the business activities of a FINRA member. Specifically, FINRA Rule 12200 requires that a dispute must be arbitrated under the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure if: (1) arbitration is required by written agreement or requested by a customer; (2) the dispute is between a customer and a FINRA member or associated person; and (3) the dispute arises in connection with the business activities of the FINRA member or associated person. By submitting his Statement of Claim to FINRA for arbitration, Gilmore was clearly requesting arbitration of the dispute. The district court found that Gilmore was in a customer relationship with Brandt because Brandt had induced him to invest in DLG. Additionally, the district court found that Gilmore’s claims related to Brandt’s recommendation of an investment in particular securities fell within the class of disputes reasonably regulated by FINRA. Therefore, the district court determined that FINRA Rule 12200 required the dispute between Gilmore and Brandt be submitted to arbitration. Because of this result, Brandt’s U-4 Form was determined to be his agreement to submit to arbitration of the dispute.

Because the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the award decision is entitled to deference by the federal court. 9 U.S.C. § 9-11. Because Brandt provided no argument that satisfied the statutory grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), the court granted Gilmore’s motion for confirmation of the arbitration award of compensatory damages of $106,024.68, with interest, and attorneys’ fees.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Federal Court Found Form U-4 and FINRA Rules to Constitute a Sufficient Basis for an Arbitration Agreement Between the Parties

Federal Court Found Form U-4 and FINRA Rules to Constitute a Sufficient Basis for an Arbitration Agreement Between the Parties

Lawrence R. Gilmore v. Scott T. Brandt, 2011 WL 5240421 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2011).

In a recent case before United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Lawrence Gilmore (“Gilmore”) filed a motion to confirm the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award in his favor, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9. Scott Brandt (“Brandt”) responded by filing a motion to vacate the FINRA award pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10. The court granted Gilmore’s motion to confirm the award, entered judgment for the award and denied Brandt’s motion to vacate the award.

The dispute underlying the FINRA arbitration began when Brandt, a representative of Lighthouse Capital Corporation, suggested that Gilmore invest $92,000 in Diversified Lending Group, Inc. (“DLG”). Gilmore made the investment, which was quickly decimated. Gilmore alleged that DLG was a Ponzi scheme and filed a Statement of Claim with FINRA. Rather than seek a stay of arbitration, Brandt contested the issue of arbitrability by appending a statement of jurisdictional objection to his FINRA Arbitration Submission Agreement and raising jurisdictional objections throughout the arbitration proceedings. FINRA appointed a panel of arbitrators to hear the matter; however, the arbitration panel did not directly address Brandt’s jurisdictional objection. In December 2010, the panel issued an arbitration award in Gilmore’s favor for compensatory damages of $106,024.68, post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

In his motion for vacatur, Brandt argued that he never entered into an arbitration agreement with Gilmore; therefore, their dispute should not have been subjected to arbitration. The district court found that Brandt had sufficiently preserved his objection to arbitrability, and that it fell to the court to decide whether the dispute was in fact arbitrable.

Because arbitration is entirely a matter of contract, a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute that it has not agreed to submit to arbitration. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 57 (1995). When Brandt first sought to be licensed to sell securities, he executed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U-4”), which contained a section agreeing “to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm, or a customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of [FINRA].” The court determined that the agreement embodied in Brandt’s Form U-4 would constitute an agreement to arbitrate the dispute with Gilmore only if FINRA rules required this dispute to be arbitrated.

FINRA Rule 12200 is a broad provision that generally applies to any customer dispute arising in connection with the business activities of a FINRA member. Specifically, FINRA Rule 12200 requires that a dispute must be arbitrated under the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure if: (1) arbitration is required by written agreement or requested by a customer; (2) the dispute is between a customer and a FINRA member or associated person; and (3) the dispute arises in connection with the business activities of the FINRA member or associated person. By submitting his Statement of Claim to FINRA for arbitration, Gilmore was clearly requesting arbitration of the dispute. The district court found that Gilmore was in a customer relationship with Brandt because Brandt had induced him to invest in DLG. Additionally, the district court found that Gilmore’s claims related to Brandt’s recommendation of an investment in particular securities fell within the class of disputes reasonably regulated by FINRA. Therefore, the district court determined that FINRA Rule 12200 required the dispute between Gilmore and Brandt be submitted to arbitration. Because of this result, Brandt’s U-4 Form was determined to be his agreement to submit to arbitration of the dispute.

Because the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the award decision is entitled to deference by the federal court. 9 U.S.C. § 9-11. Because Brandt provided no argument that satisfied the statutory grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), the court granted Gilmore’s motion for confirmation of the arbitration award of compensatory damages of $106,024.68, with interest, and attorneys’ fees.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Differences in the Enforcement of Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Covenants

Differences in the Enforcement of Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Covenants
Newinno, Inc. v. Peregrim Development, Inc., 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1160

Mr. Russell Koch worked for Newinno, Inc., a consulting firm, where his employment was contingent upon several restrictive covenants contained in his employment contract. The main agreement between the parties was a non-disclosure covenant designed to protect Newinno’s confidential information and business interests upon Mr. Koch’s termination. The agreement had four main provisions such that Mr. Koch was: 1) prohibited from disclosing information about the company that “is not generally known in the industry which the company is or may become engaged”, 2) prohibited disclosing any information relating to actual or potential clients’ products, business plans, designs, or trade secrets, 3) prohibited disclosing information from the company’s “BrainBank”, and lastly 4) prohibited disclosing information relating to the company’s “lead/prospect and customer lists”. The agreement did not articulate any time or geographical restrictions, which became the main issue in the case and how Mr. Koch asserted that the covenant was not binding or enforceable. These provisions went into effect when Mr. Koch voluntarily terminated his employment at Newinno and began to work for one of its competitors, Peregrim Development, Inc..
Newinno sought to enforce the provisions and requested an injunction from the court to prevent Mr. Koch’s further employment at its direct competitor in order to prevent any breaches of the covenant by him disclosing confidential information. The court held in favor of Newinno and stated that the company had met the burden of proof to demonstrate that the facts of the case warranted injunctive relief. In its decision, the court explained that the issue at the heart of the case was not “whether a reasonableness standard should govern the enforceability of the parties’ confidentiality agreements, but rather concerns [regarding] the exact manner in which the test should be defined or applied”.
Connecticut courts are divided on whether to apply the same criteria and test used to assess non-compete agreements’ enforceability or resort to a more relaxed version of the reasonableness test. Non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements have traditionally enjoyed treatment that is more favorable under Connecticut laws in the courts than non-compete agreements. There are not any Connecticut cases, state or federal, that have held that the enforceability of confidentiality agreements hinges on the same standards and test that governs the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Overall, the courts have concluded that time and geographical restrictions are not necessary in order to enforce a non-disclosure agreement. This is very divergent from how the courts address the enforceability of non-compete agreements where they generally insist that those provisions are in the text of the agreement. This trend has led Connecticut courts to apply a modified version of the non-compete enforceability test where the legal analysis takes into account the “purpose of the confidentiality covenants and the specific information sought to be protected.
It is beneficial for an employee to know the difference in the enforcement trends and policies with regard to non-disclosure and non-compete agreements under Connecticut law. This is especially true when an employment contract contains both covenants and ensuing legal disputes question the validity of each. A party may succeed on the merits of the case with regard to the enforcement of one covenant and then fail on the merits for the other.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Differences in the Enforcement of Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Covenants

Differences in the Enforcement of Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Covenants
Newinno, Inc. v. Peregrim Development, Inc., 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1160

Mr. Russell Koch worked for Newinno, Inc., a consulting firm, where his employment was contingent upon several restrictive covenants contained in his employment contract. The main agreement between the parties was a non-disclosure covenant designed to protect Newinno’s confidential information and business interests upon Mr. Koch’s termination. The agreement had four main provisions such that Mr. Koch was: 1) prohibited from disclosing information about the company that “is not generally known in the industry which the company is or may become engaged”, 2) prohibited disclosing any information relating to actual or potential clients’ products, business plans, designs, or trade secrets, 3) prohibited disclosing information from the company’s “BrainBank”, and lastly 4) prohibited disclosing information relating to the company’s “lead/prospect and customer lists”. The agreement did not articulate any time or geographical restrictions, which became the main issue in the case and how Mr. Koch asserted that the covenant was not binding or enforceable. These provisions went into effect when Mr. Koch voluntarily terminated his employment at Newinno and began to work for one of its competitors, Peregrim Development, Inc..
Newinno sought to enforce the provisions and requested an injunction from the court to prevent Mr. Koch’s further employment at its direct competitor in order to prevent any breaches of the covenant by him disclosing confidential information. The court held in favor of Newinno and stated that the company had met the burden of proof to demonstrate that the facts of the case warranted injunctive relief. In its decision, the court explained that the issue at the heart of the case was not “whether a reasonableness standard should govern the enforceability of the parties’ confidentiality agreements, but rather concerns [regarding] the exact manner in which the test should be defined or applied”.
Connecticut courts are divided on whether to apply the same criteria and test used to assess non-compete agreements’ enforceability or resort to a more relaxed version of the reasonableness test. Non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements have traditionally enjoyed treatment that is more favorable under Connecticut laws in the courts than non-compete agreements. There are not any Connecticut cases, state or federal, that have held that the enforceability of confidentiality agreements hinges on the same standards and test that governs the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Overall, the courts have concluded that time and geographical restrictions are not necessary in order to enforce a non-disclosure agreement. This is very divergent from how the courts address the enforceability of non-compete agreements where they generally insist that those provisions are in the text of the agreement. This trend has led Connecticut courts to apply a modified version of the non-compete enforceability test where the legal analysis takes into account the “purpose of the confidentiality covenants and the specific information sought to be protected.
It is beneficial for an employee to know the difference in the enforcement trends and policies with regard to non-disclosure and non-compete agreements under Connecticut law. This is especially true when an employment contract contains both covenants and ensuing legal disputes question the validity of each. A party may succeed on the merits of the case with regard to the enforcement of one covenant and then fail on the merits for the other.
If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

FINRA Arbitration Awards Employer Over $500,000 for Promissory Notes Accelerated by Employee’s Termination

In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney FA Notes Holdings, LLC v. Respondent Robert W. Hathaway (2012 WL 2675417)

In a recent Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration, a sole FINRA arbitrator held that an employee is liable to satisfy his indebtedness on promissory notes, including interest, to his employer upon termination of employment.

In this case, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (“MSSB”) and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney FA Notes Holdings, LLC, alleged that Robert W. Hathaway (“Hathaway”) was in breach of two promissory notes executed while he was employed by MSSB. In its arbitration filing, MSSB claimed the principal balances due under both notes, per diem interest for both notes, and costs of collection and arbitration. This matter proceeded pursuant to Rule 13806 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure because Hathaway neither filed a Statement of Answer nor appeared at the hearing.

On or about March 8, 2008, Hathaway executed the first promissory note with MSSB for $729,560, at an interest rate of three-percent per annum, to be repaid in nine consecutive annual installments beginning on March 19, 2009. The terms of the note included an agreement to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. On or about June 9, 2009, Hathaway executed the second promissory note for $75,257.83 at an interest rate of 2.25-percent per annum, to be repaid in eight consecutive annual installments beginning on June 9, 2010.

On or about September 19, 2011, Hathaway’s employment at MSSB ended. MSSB alleged that termination of employment triggered acceleration of the promissory notes and made a demand for immediate re-payment. Hathaway failed and refused to satisfy the indebtedness.

After considering the pleadings and the submissions, the sole arbitrator decided that Hathaway was liable for the principal balance due under each promissory note. Hathaway was also liable for per diem interest accruing from the date employment was terminated through the date of payment on each note. Finally, Hathaway was to reimburse MSSB for non-refundable portion of its initial claim filing fee. The final award to MSSB totaled $542,816.00.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues generally, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

FINRA Arbitration Awards Employer Over $500,000 for Promissory Notes Accelerated by Employee’s Termination

In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney FA Notes Holdings, LLC v. Respondent Robert W. Hathaway (2012 WL 2675417)

In a recent Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration, a sole FINRA arbitrator held that an employee is liable to satisfy his indebtedness on promissory notes, including interest, to his employer upon termination of employment.

In this case, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (“MSSB”) and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney FA Notes Holdings, LLC, alleged that Robert W. Hathaway (“Hathaway”) was in breach of two promissory notes executed while he was employed by MSSB. In its arbitration filing, MSSB claimed the principal balances due under both notes, per diem interest for both notes, and costs of collection and arbitration. This matter proceeded pursuant to Rule 13806 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure because Hathaway neither filed a Statement of Answer nor appeared at the hearing.

On or about March 8, 2008, Hathaway executed the first promissory note with MSSB for $729,560, at an interest rate of three-percent per annum, to be repaid in nine consecutive annual installments beginning on March 19, 2009. The terms of the note included an agreement to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. On or about June 9, 2009, Hathaway executed the second promissory note for $75,257.83 at an interest rate of 2.25-percent per annum, to be repaid in eight consecutive annual installments beginning on June 9, 2010.

On or about September 19, 2011, Hathaway’s employment at MSSB ended. MSSB alleged that termination of employment triggered acceleration of the promissory notes and made a demand for immediate re-payment. Hathaway failed and refused to satisfy the indebtedness.

After considering the pleadings and the submissions, the sole arbitrator decided that Hathaway was liable for the principal balance due under each promissory note. Hathaway was also liable for per diem interest accruing from the date employment was terminated through the date of payment on each note. Finally, Hathaway was to reimburse MSSB for non-refundable portion of its initial claim filing fee. The final award to MSSB totaled $542,816.00.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues generally, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Court confirms FINRA Arbitration Award for Employee in the amount of $150,000 with interest

Scoble v. Blaylock & Partners, L.P., 2012 U.S. LEXIS 13706 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

Matthew W. Scoble (“Scoble”) filed a petition against his former employer, Blaylock & Partners, L.P., subsequently known as Blaylock & Company, Inc. (“Blaylock”), to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to § 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9.  Scoble claimed that Blaylock breached a contract between the parties by failing to make a severance payment of $150,000 to him after Blaylock terminated his employment without cause.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) appointed a panel of three arbitrators to hear the matter after both parties agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration for a decision and award.  Both parties participated in the arbitration hearing that lasted several days.  Thereafter, the Arbitration Panel issued an award to Scoble in the amount $150,000 in compensatory damages.  The responsible party, Blaylock, would be liable for post-judgment interest pursuant to FINRA’s Code of Arbitration Procedure if it did not pay the award within thirty days.

The Court found that Scoble’s petition was sufficiently supported and indicated that there was no question of material fact.  Blaylock did not move to modify, vacate or correct the arbitration award and did not submit an opposition to the petition.  The petition to confirm the arbitration award was granted and judgment was entered for Scoble in the amount of $150,000 with post-judgment interest.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues generally, please feel free to contact Russell J. Sweeting, Esq. by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at rsweeting@mayalaw.com.