this Court rejected the argument that an employer's providing at-will employment is not sufficient consideration to support an employment-related promise by the employee: "[The employee] also argues that he was paid no consideration for signing the noncompetition agreement. We note that our case law holds that continued employment is sufficient consideration for signing a noncompetition agreement.” Similarly, we reject the argument that United’s providing at-will employment is not sufficient consideration to support the employment-related promise to arbitrate by McNaughton. Third, United’s promises in the arbitration policy, which it reserved the right to "alter, amend, modify, or revoke,” do not deprive the contract of consideration. Of course, these revocable promises (S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>). 6 . McNaughton does not allege that the
holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees 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 the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work 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