would not have signed agreement if he had been aware of the disputed clause; and that he was told that if he did not sign the agreement, he would lose the contract). Soto’s next argument is that Law 80 makes it illegal for State Chemical to threaten to fire her for refusing to sign the agreement. She argues that because refusal to sign does not constitute “just cause” for dismissal under the law, it was illegal for State Chemical to make her continued employment conditional on her signing of the agreement. But as we have already explained, Law 80 does not make it illegal for State Chemical to fire Soto without just cause. As such, an arbitration agreement is not made unenforceable by Law 80 merely because signing it was a condition of continued employment. Cf. Rosenberg, 170 F.3d at 17 (<HOLDING>). Soto’s final argument is that her consent was
holding the amount of procedural unconscionability was limited by the fact that the arbitration agreement was presented as a separate two page document holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for unconscionability holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement holding that a person signing an arbitration agreement using power of attorney is not a party to that agreement merely by virtue of having signed it