state laws applicable only to arbitration provisions.... Congress precluded States from singling out arbitration provisions for suspect status, requiring instead that such provisions be placed ‘upon the same footing as other contracts.’ ” Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 511, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)) (citations omitted); see also KKW Enters., Inc. v. Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffees, 184 F.3d 42, 50-52 (1st Cir.1999). For these reasons, we reject Soto’s invitation to expand the scope of AHhur Young to hold that continued employment cannot constitute valid consideration for an arbitration agreement. Cf. Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F.Supp.2d 282 (D.P.R.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Jimenez v. Island Oasis Frozen
holding antiassignment clause in structured settlement is enforceable holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause holding that although a noncompetition clause failed to satisfy puerto ricos requirements of consideration under ahhur young a severable nondisclosure clause was enforceable holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract