employer “a nearly unfettered right to discharge an employee.” Jones v. Dunkirk Radiator Corp., 21 F.3d 18, 21-22 (2d Cir.NY.1994) (citing Sabetay, 69 N.Y.2d at 333, 514 NY.S.2d 209, 506 N.E.2d 919; Murphy, 58 NY.2d at 305, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86). The presumption of at will employment can be rebutted, however, by establishing an “express limitation in the individual contract of employment” curtailing an employer’s right to terminate at will. Baron v. Port Auth., 271 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir.2001). Policies in a personnel manual specifying the employer’s practices with respect to the employment relationship, including the procedures or grounds for termination, may become part of the employment contract. See, e.g., id.) Marfia v. T.C. Ziraat Bankasi, 147 F.3d 83, 87-89 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). To establish that such policies are a part of
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 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 the statement this employee handbook is not intended to create any contractual rights in favor of you or the company the company reserves the right to change the terms of this handbook at any time was sufficient to disclaim any implied contract to engage in progressive discipline holding that policies set out in employee handbook formed implied contractual obligations holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will