themselves would not constitute sufficient consideration to support a contract to arbitrate. See 3 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 7:7, p. 89 (4th ed. 1992) (”[W]here the promisor may perform or not, solely on the condition of his whim, his promise will not serve as consideration.’’). However, providing at-will employment is sufficient consideration. Con-delles, 530 So.2d at 204. At bottom, United gave McNaughton a job, and McNaughton in return agreed, as a condition of her employment, to arbitrate employment-related disputes pursuant to the arbitration policy as amended by United from time to time. Thus, there was sufficient consideration to bind McNaughton to arbitrate her employment-related claims. See Kelly v. UHC Management Co., 967 F.Supp. 1240, 1258—60 (N.D.Ala.1997) (<HOLDING>); Maye v. Smith Barney Inc., 897 F.Supp. 100,
holding the party seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement because of prohibitive arbitration fees bears the burden of proof and the possibility of such party incurring prohibitive costs is too speculative to invalidate an arbitration agreement where the record reveals only that the agreement is silent on the subject of arbitration costs holding employee handbook or employers printed statement of policy are promises in implied offer of unilateral contract which an employee can accept by beginning or continuing to work for employer holding that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook was illusory where the employer expressly reserved a right to unilaterally rescind any provisions of the handbook holding that an employee was required to arbitrate employment disputes under arbitration policies that the employer reserved the right to publish from time to time holding that an employers reservation of right to alter amend or revoke the arbitration policy in an employee handbook did not invalidate the binding agreement to arbitrate employment disputes