Howard Saari was employed by Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., as an account executive beginning in July 1988. He alleges that his work was satisfactory at all times. According to Saari’s complaint, on or about December 14, 1988, a “sum of money, supposedly belonging to a client of Smith Barney, was supposedly stolen from the desk of a Smith Barney employee.” Saari alleged he was questioned about the theft and was later asked to take a polygraph test concerning the incident, which he refused. Saari claims he was then terminated for his refusal to take the polygraph examination. Saari became a registered representative of the NYSE and thereby subject to its Rule 347, which provides that “Any controversy between a registered representative and any member or member organization arising out of the employment or termination of employment of such registered representative by and with such member or member organization shall be settled by arbitration.” Saari contends that the enforcement provisions of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act show no such flexibility.
Question: Is the arbitration requirement in violation of the EPPA? Explain.