u5 verces crd

10 replies [Last post]
changae's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-27

I was fired from a  firm after arguing with a superviser. My u5 states I was fired for non-securities violation which is pretty vague. My crd reflects no actions and its been over a year since I've worked for the firm that fired me. My concern is- Will this prevent me from finding new employment? Does this also mean that My record isn't clean? Should I arbitrate or just leave alone since my crd is clear? I'm asking because I've been selling insurance alone without my security lisences but now I want to use them so I won't lose them.
Please help.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

changae wrote:
I was fired from a  firm after arguing with a superviser. My u5 states I was fired for non-securities violation which is pretty vague. My crd reflects no actions and its been over a year since I've worked for the firm that fired me. My concern is- Will this prevent me from finding new employment? Does this also mean that My record isn't clean? Should I arbitrate or just leave alone since my crd is clear? I'm asking because I've been selling insurance alone without my security lisences but now I want to use them so I won't lose them.
Please help.

What were you arguing with your supervisor about?

changae's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-27

I was working at a bank and was keeping a customers file at my desk and awaiting some new forms when she went through the file without me being around and without asking me wrote me up for not having filed this away in a timely manner.
I was fired for insubordination since I used a curse word during this argument. During the argument she didn't curse but often used vulgarity during conversationas and I feel she wanted to have a intimate relationship.
The point is I did nothing ethicly wrong business-wise and I'm worried that 'grayness' on my u5 is damaging.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Technically, your U5 disclosure does NOT constitute a regulatory problem because your former employer pointedly noted that your termination was based upon a "non-securities violation."  As such, you could just as easily had the same disclosure for lack of production, reduction in force, closing of branch, etc.
Separately, all claims are subject to statutes of limitation.  By having waited over a year since the incident, you may well have lost the ability to file some one-year statue claims.  If you intend to sue, you had best seek legal counsel immediately before you lose additional claims.
Finally, I'm not sure what you believe are your damages.  If you were insubordinate, then the firm had the right to fire you.  If you were not hired subject to a written agreement/contract, then you may well be terminable at will, and your claims severely limited if not non-existent.  As you your feeling that she wanted to have an intimate relationship, I suspect that there is very little legal basis to proceed on that claim if the basis is merely your "feelings" and there is no evidence to corroborate your charges.
While you are free to file any reasonable claim, I suspect that a lawyer will likely cost you at least $10,000 to $20,000 (unless you proceed on your own).  From what you set forth, I don't see a strong case.  As to the other career issues you raise, perhaps you would be best advised to seek affordable, local counsel rather than questionable advice on an Internet forum?

changae's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-27

Thank you for replying.
My biggest concern is not sueing. I'm more concerned with the fact that the u-5 statement may prevent future employment. I'm worried companies may see this and not hire me in spit of the fact that my crd is clean. I want to know if I'm over thinking or should I be concerned? I don't have money for litigation and just want to secure a good job in the securities industry.
Thanks
p.s. I think you answered my question by stating it isn't a regulatory problem.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

changae wrote:
I was working at a bank and was keeping a customers file at my desk and awaiting some new forms when she went through the file without me being around and without asking me wrote me up for not having filed this away in a timely manner.
I was fired for insubordination since I used a curse word during this argument. During the argument she didn't curse but often used vulgarity during conversationas and I feel she wanted to have a intimate relationship.
The point is I did nothing ethicly wrong business-wise and I'm worried that 'grayness' on my u5 is damaging.

The way you two treated each other, it sounds like you need a divorce attorney!

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Any disclosure on a U5 is likely to concern someone -- that's just human nature. If the choice of a hire comes down to Mr. X with $250,000 in trail and a "clean" U5 and Mr. Y with $250,000 in trail and a "non-regulatory, insubordination termination" on a U5, there's a strong statistical likelihood that Mr. X will get the offer.
On the other hand, should your U5 reach the desk of Compliance/Legal, most veterans would see the disclosure as just so much garbage and leave it to the business-side to hire or not.  Yes, a call will probably be made to the former firm to see if there's more to the story (did they sanitize the disclosure?), but as you relate the issue it seems your event is just so much white-noise.
A word of warning--if you do decide to "sue" over the U5, that litigation will likely be of more concern to any potential employer than the insubordination issue.  BDs just don't seem to like hiring RRs who sue BDs (duh).  Also, you might want to consider "moving on with your life" and not dwelling on the nature of the dispute with the former supervisor.  New employers also don't particularly cotton to folks slamming former colleagues or bosses.  Just say it was a personality clash and that you'd rather put it behind you like a professional and move on.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

changae, are you successful?   Let's face it.  That will determine whether someone will hire you again.

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

rrbdlawyer:
On the other hand, should your U5 reach the desk of Compliance/Legal, most veterans would see the disclosure as just so much garbage and leave it to the business-side to hire or not.  Yes, a call will probably be made to the former firm to see if there's more to the story (did they sanitize the disclosure?), but as you relate the issue it seems your event is just so much white-noise.
--------------------------------------
Hey Bill, just a hypothetical: 
If Compliance calls the former firm and the former firm says that, "they did sanitize the U5 and the guy was a scumbag", could he have grounds to sue then? Wouldn't that "further explanation" exceed the limits of the U5 and be grounds for a suit? Otherwise, the former firm could claim that he was a suspected child molester and claim protection of speech, as it pertains to the U5.
Just wondering. 

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Doberman:
As you probably know, new employers are required to conduct a background check of all new hires, and that includes efforts to confirm "issues" with prior employers.  As such, it's likely that given the "insubordination" aspect of the U5 under discussion, that someone would put in a call to the former firm to see if there's more to the issue than meets the eye.
Wall Street can be a pretty small place at times.  We all have former colleagues all over the place, and if you work in Compliance at Firm A and its about the same size as Firm B, and you're both in the same markets, and you're both hiring from the same labor pool -- chances are that someone always knows someone at the other firm.  Consequently, there are tons of off-the-record calls that go on everyday about just these issues.
If a firm sanitizes a U5, it is a violation.  Still, that goes on all the time and to be fair to most "former" employers, they tend to err on the side of safety to avoid defamation (which is somewhat odd since the courts are upholding the right to defame on the U5!).  On the other hand, if there's bad blood between the former firm and the RR, then we all know how folks get trashed on the same U5.
Assuming the U5 is sanitized, it's a tough lawsuit.  First off, truth is generally a defense to defamation -- so in this odd twist, you would be suing someone who contradicted the U5 and supposedly warned the other firm that you were a scumbag (and if you were, what are you suing about and why would you want to publicize your indiscretions to the world?).  On the other hand, since, as you correctly suggest, the U5 is an official, regulatory document, it would be difficult for the former firm to stand by the oral contradictions of their employee and say that "Yes, he was telling the truth and we sanitized the U5".  As such, extending this so-called industry "courtesy" of a candid, off-the-record conversation is never without some risk. 
For those of us industry veterans, we know that this type of off-the-record communication is exactly what makes Wall Street work so well --- and is also what is the cause of so much trouble.  On the one hand, it's great to get a head's up that some RR was let go because he was doing lines of coke in the bathroom and was losing a ton at the track.  On the other hand, the insider tip over drinks about the pending acquisition damages the market's credibility.  Alas, what would life be without rationaliztions?

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

Thanks for the reply, Bill!

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×