using a formula based on the employee’s salary and years of service. See Otero-Burgos v. Inter Am. Univ., 558 F.3d 1, 7-9 (1st Cir.2009) (providing overview of content and purpose of Law 80). Any claim that Law 80 does more than create a right to severance pay for covered employees is foreclosed by our precedent. See Rodriguez v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 816 F.2d 24 (1st Cir.1987) (rejecting district court’s holding that Law 80 imposed a duty on employers to retain employees with greater seniority when lay-offs became necessary, id. at 25, 28, and holding that “severance pay is the only remedy available under Law 80,” id. at 29). Soto concedes that new employment is valid consideration for the execution of an arbitration agreement, see Hadnot v. Bay, Ltd., 344 F.3d 474, 477 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), but argues that continued employment is
holding that offer of atwill employment is valid consideration to support an arbitration agreement holding that a valid contract requires acceptance of an offer holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists holding offer of continued atwill employment did not constitute consideration for the arbitration agreement holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly