out of your business or this agreement”). Accordingly, we hold that McClellan’s claims that SouthTrust and Comer made misrepresentations to him during the hiring process arise out of his employment with SouthTrust and are, therefore, subject to the arbitration agreement in the U-4. 6 III. The trial court improperly denied the motion to compel arbitration. We reverse the order denying arbitration and remand the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, LYONS, and BROWN, JJ., concur. KENNEDY and JOHNSTONE, JJ., dissent. 1 . Neither party has alleged that the transaction did not involve interstate commerce. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995)
holding that the district court lacked the authority to compel arbitration  because the faa is inapplicable to employees who are engaged in interstate commerce recognizing that the faa is applicable to only those transactions involving interstate commerce holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding that the term commerce in the faa is to be broadly construed holding that all arbitration provisions dealing with transactions involving interstate commerce are subject to the faa