prominence of the text of the disclaimer: Was the text accentuated with larger, contrasting, or capitalized print, or by some other means? Lincoln, 867 P.2d at 703. Second, a court must examine the placement of the disclaimer: Was it a separate provision such that a reasonable person should have noticed it, or was it presented within a broader, general provision? Id. at 703-04. Finally, a court must determine whether the language of the disclaimer is unambiguous: Does the disclaimer clearly state that employment is at-will, or is it ambiguous concerning the precise effect of the disclaimer on the employment relationship? Id. at 704. We find that the disclaimer at issue in this ease meets each element of this three-part test. Cf. Loghry v. Unicover Corp., 878 P.2d 510, 512 (Wyo.1994) (<HOLDING>). First, the text is prominent; it is printed
holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill  was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law holding that employee guidebook did not create an implied employment contract as it contained a clearlystated boldfaced disclaimer and statement that employment was atwill holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer holding that a separate 85 x 11 page which contained a disclaimer and which the employee was required to sign prevented the creation of an impliedinfact contract of employment holding where employee handbook and employment offer letter disclaimed creation of employment contract that employees testimony of his understanding of terms of agreement did not raise fact issue of specific express and clear agreement contradicting the express provisions of the personnel manual and the employment offer letter