## Facts

- Thomas J. Neary worked as an insurance agent for The Prudential Insurance Company of America and participated in union-related activity.
- Neary associated with another agent, Francis Plante, who was involved in separate litigation against Prudential.
- Prudential deposed Neary in the Plante matter; Neary admitted he had shared commissions with Plante, contrary to company policy.
- About one month later, Prudential terminated Neary, citing the commission-sharing violation.
- Neary asserted the termination was retaliatory, pointing to internal documents labeling him a “union instigator” and disciplinary records suggesting other agents who shared commissions were not always terminated.
- Neary sued asserting (1) retaliation for exercising speech rights under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q and (2) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Connecticut common law.
- The district court compelled arbitration under NASD rules; Prudential moved for summary judgment in arbitration.
- Neary opposed summary judgment and presented the governing summary-judgment standard requiring ambiguities and reasonable inferences to be resolved for the nonmovant.
- The arbitration panel held a hearing with live testimony from Neary and extensive questioning, then granted summary judgment for Prudential without issuing an explanation.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration panel’s grant of summary judgment should be vacated for “manifest disregard of the law” because it ignored the controlling summary-judgment standard in an intent-based wrongful-termination case.

## Decision

- The court granted Neary’s application to vacate the arbitration award and denied Prudential’s motion to confirm.
- The court held the award was entered in manifest disregard of the law governing summary judgment.
- The court rejected Neary’s late attempt to relitigate the earlier order compelling arbitration as untimely.
- The court did not reach Neary’s broader claim that the NASD forum is generally unfair in employment disputes.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitration award may be vacated for manifest disregard of the law only where (1) the arbitrators knew a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it, and (2) the ignored law was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable.
- Summary judgment requires resolving ambiguities and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
- Retaliatory-discharge claims that turn on employer motive and intent are generally fact-intensive; summary judgment is improper where evidence permits competing inferences about intent.
- When an arbitral panel grants “summary judgment” after taking live testimony and effectively resolving credibility or disputed inferences, it may show nonapplication of the summary-judgment standard.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the NASD panel’s unexplained summary-judgment award because, given the intent-focused claims and evidence supporting retaliatory motive, the panel’s handling of the proceeding showed manifest disregard of the well-defined and clearly applicable summary-judgment standard.


Neary v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 63 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Conn. 1999)