to support an employment contract and i relied heavily as you know on the case of a converses national chain company in that case it's important to note not only was mr okas continued employment deemed sufficient consideration to support a change to his commission agreement but that change the commissioner agreement was somewhat retrospective nature so the court said in that case even though mr owen was notified and that his commission structure was going to change going back to january that was still ok when he showed up to work the next day under those terms with full notice that that those were the terms he would be working under that was his acceptance of that of that unilateral offer claimant i do not see how the plaintiff can ignore that precedent from the renowned supreme court it's in fact been cited by the district court in multiple cases even cases involving non computer agreements which have substantially said that was not true that there were there were considerations that play with a non computer cream and that were not to play with any other kind of contract certainly not an arbitration agreement in addition under the f a a it mandates that states four corners of the agreement to arbitrate to find an ambiguity in that language where it does not exist within that agreement why isn't there one agreement the way it was presented to the employer it was frequently numbered there's there's one page this missing which is disturbing to me but why why would we consider that one agreement and i think if you look at there are also other things that you have to sign specifically out to the letter does not say as a condition of employment i don't dispute that there were other agreed that there was another agreement that has had to sign as a condition of employment the letter does not state that it says there are signed that he would have been able to continue to be employed just based upon the letter well i don't dispute that that was a condition of his look at the face of the letter the language in those two documents it's very clear that it's not want to green the letter says you haven new employer and all the benefits that you have with your old employer are going to continue we're going to make some changes to your pension employment and then says please sign below to acknowledge your acceptance of the of terms of employment after that it says there are two additional documents you will need to sign please attached essentially so even the face of the letter itself does not incorporate the terms of the arbitration agreement into the letter it says hey here all the conditions of your limit sign below for those and by the way here's another agreement you also need to sign when you look at the fee for the arbitration agreement it's very clear that that's a standalone contract there's nothing in that contract that prevents any interviewee about whether it can be changed whether it's fully integrated whether that promise is a binding promise or not it's a it's got a heading it's on a separate page it requires a separate signature it's very clear in all capital letters at the bottom you are hereby relinquishing your right to a trial and a jury was one of the numbers if there are separate agreements what's the point being number one through four million as you are receiving four pages and there's cases that support the proposition that pagination of a document particularly arbitration agreement and another type of document does not lead to the conclusion that they are one contract construe that there is no ambiguity this contract is remarkably clear it doesn't say it can be changed in any way there's nothing in the four corners employment language course have repeatedly held that the new york at will nature of employment doesn't preclude an employer from entering into an arbitration agreement separately with an at will employee that's just not supported by the case law and it's certainly i would not support the proposition that just because you have a letter or a hamburger or anything else that's a policy and says we can change it at a time that that would preclude an employer from ever having a contract with an employee that would be kind of because of the pagination and the fact that the letter references the arbitration agreement numerous courts have held that dream it's similar to this with him books that reference them or letters that reference do not create one contract and i would rely primarily on hill versus people that the letter agreement executed by the pieties encompasses all of our documents other provisions as pot a global employment arrangement but your sister says we don't even have to reach that issue because there is sufficient consideration for the agreement in any event which your response had a valid contract under if you accept the plaintiff's position in this case that the reservation of rights clause which said that the company may change the terms and conditions of employment including brief describing it but the sell it on a case is remarkably similar to this case in the seller's our case you have an employee handbook which says by the way you have power of one of the parties to not comply or alter what you have agreed to than it's an illusory promise and it is not enforceable to have remained employed you're going to have the same pay and benefits then it says of course and again this is important the company could terminate the relationship at any time for any reason it could change the terms of employment including and benefits at any time and then as my sister said sign below expecting the above terms in conditions one of the terms and conditions is we can change the terms and conditions at any time so you're agreeing to ok i understand it what want that's what i'm subject to event goes on to say right below it there are two additional documents you have to sign you have to sign the agreement and you have to side the code of conduct and of course those requires your signature in return of docs by six twenty fourteen that letter agreement is part of a global arrangement which interests updates the execution and return it includes the  additional provisions and additional documents of his pov your employment arrangement that is being ignored and established in this guy so you have the operation agreement that is presented at the same time agreement it's referenced in the letter agreement it's accessed in provided in conjunction with a letter it's identified as a document that must be signed and returned with the letter agreement and as which is accomplished in that is silent on that issue the in france the air be duty that exist as to whether this is all one document is i think readily apparent we with that issue there on a supreme court may in fact adopt the trend that is is currently out there that you know at will employment as judge give context of whether it's official consideration for modification of a commission here we have a situation where you want it could be sufficient consideration to waive a constitutional right to a jury trial and again certainly still good law for the issue of modification of a commission of an existing employ be whether it would be followed given the current trend at the current time i think is more of an open question here on a particularly given judge g but there is a case largely in the fourth six seven eleven circuits which provide that matters in pending proceedings can be considered by the revise modify delete or add any and all policies procedures work rules or benefits state in the handbook or in any other document except for the policy of at will employment thank you