here - FindLaw

at-will status. The parties can each end the employment relationship with the other at
anytime for any reason, with or without cause. The arbitrator has no authority to alter the
at-will nature of any employee‘s employment with the Company.‖
The Agreement is 10 pages long and is not part of another document such as an
employee handbook or manual. It is a stand-alone agreement that addresses only one
subject: arbitration.
Peleg opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Agreement was
unconscionable based on several allegedly invalid provisions. In the alternative, he
asserted the Agreement was illusory and unenforceable in light of the following
provision: ―This Agreement to arbitrate shall survive the termination of the employeremployee
relationship between the Company and any Covered Employee, and shall apply
to any covered Claim whether it arises or is asserted during or after termination of the
Covered Employee‘s employment with the Company or the expiration of any benefit
plan. This Agreement can be amended, modified, or revoked in writing by the Company
at anytime, but only upon thirty (30) days‘ advance notice to the Covered Employee of
that amendment, modification, or revocation. However, any amendment, modification,
or revocation will have no effect on any Claim that was filed for arbitration prior to the
effective date of such amendment, modification, or revocation.‖ (Italics added.)
The motion to compel was heard on February 2, 2009. By order of the same date,
the trial court granted the motion and stayed further judicial proceedings pending the
outcome of arbitration.
C. Arbitration Proceedings
Under the Agreement, arbitration is to be administered by the AAA and conducted
by one arbitrator. In accordance with the trial court‘s ruling, the case was so assigned.
The arbitrator set the case for hearing from June 21 to June 23, 2010. At the request of
Neiman Marcus, the parties agreed that the hearing could be rescheduled to begin on
September 28, 2010. Thereafter, at Peleg‘s request, the parties agreed to reset the hearing
to commence on October 19, 2010. In making his request, Peleg asserted that his
6