that provided the employer with a unilateral right to modify the terms at any time without notice). There is nothing about the substance or the procedure of the Policy signed in 2004 that renders it unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The plaintiff accepted his employment at OBS with the full knowledge of the arbitration provision and he is bound by his acceptance. Moreover, the plaintiff is also bound to arbitrate by the- Revised Policy included in the Employee Handbook. Under New York law,- employee handbook revisions are binding when an employee continues to work after receiving notice of the revisions. See Brown v. St. Paul Travelers Co., 331 Fed.Appx. 68, 69-70 (2d Cir.2009) (Summary Order); Manigault v. Macy’s East, LLC., 318 Fed.Appx. 6, 7 (2d Cir.2009) (Summary Order) (<HOLDING>); Dixon v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 12 Civ.
holding that it was not a violation of public policy for the defendant to discharge the plaintiff an atwill employee because she was a single mother unwilling to work newly imposed long hours holding offer of continued atwill employment did not constitute consideration for the arbitration agreement holding that an employee could not be bound to an arbitration agreement that had been mailed to him by his employer acceptance of which was indicated by employees continued tenure with the company where there was no evidence in the record that the employee had received read or understood the document holding that employee consented to and was bound by revised terms of employment including a newly instituted arbitration policy when she continued to work after receiving notice of the modification holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired