with the argument that because the alleged fraud occurred before he was employed with SouthTrust, it could not “arise out of [his] employment.” The key to this case is the interpretation of the phrase “arising out of ... employment.” The United States Supreme Court has stated that courts must construe arbitration agreements broadly, resolving all doubts in favor of arbitration. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927. A broad construction of the term “employment” is particularly appropriate in this case, given the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States strongly advancing arbitration of all disputes related to the securities industry. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon,
holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable holding that claims under  10b of the securities exchange act of 1934 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable holding that claims under the securities act of 1934 and the rico statutes are arbitrable