Conduragis v. Prospect Chartercare, LLC, 909 F.3d 516

Plaintiff sued his former employer in federal court alleging wrongful termination under the Family and Rhode Island Parental and Family Medical Leave Acts.
Defendants moved to dismiss and compel arbitration based on a signed arbitration agreement.
District court denied the motion, concluding the arbitration agreement lacked consideration: Defendants reserved the right in an offer letter to change employment terms (making the arbitration promise illusory) and the promise of continued at-will employment was insufficient consideration under a Rhode Island trial-court decision.
Defendants appealed; the First Circuit reviewed the question de novo.
The First Circuit held the employer’s promise of continued at-will employment is valid consideration under Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent (Oken), and thus enforced the arbitration agreement.
The court denied Plaintiff’s motions to supplement the record and refused to consider a late-raised procedural unconscionability claim (deeming it waived) and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration; costs to Defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there valid consideration for the arbitration agreement?	Arbitration promise was illusory because employer reserved right to change terms; continued at-will employment is insufficient consideration.	Mutual promise to arbitrate plus continued at-will employment constitute consideration; Oken controls.	Continued at-will employment is valid consideration under Rhode Island law (Oken); arbitration agreement enforceable.
Did the employer’s reservation of rights render the arbitration promise illusory?	Yes — reservation to change terms anytime makes promise unenforceable.	Reservation does not defeat consideration in light of controlling precedent.	Court avoided deciding definitively whether reservation made promise illusory because Oken resolved the outcome for consideration.
Should the appellate court permit supplementation of the record with portions of an employee handbook?	Handbook reinforces that employer retained right to change terms and arbitration.	Handbook would not change the legal conclusion about consideration.	Denied — supplementation would not affect outcome.
May Plaintiff raise procedural unconscionability and obtain discovery on appeal?	Plaintiff asked for remand for limited discovery to develop a procedural unconscionability claim.	Argument was raised for first time on appeal and at oral argument; it is waived.	Denied as waived; appellate court refused to order discovery or remand on that ground.

Oken v. Nat'l Chain Co., 424 A.2d 234 (R.I. 1981) (Rhode Island Supreme Court holding continued at-will employment can constitute consideration)
Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., 904 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2018) (standard of review for arbitration questions on appeal)
Riley v. Rivers, [citation="710 F. App'x 503"] (2d Cir. 2018) (denial of supplementation where additional record material would not change outcome)
United States v. Pulido, 566 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2009) (arguments raised for first time are generally waived)
Town of Norwood v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 202 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2000) (litigant must develop sustained legal arguments; courts are not brief writers)
Muñiz v. Rovira, 373 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (arguments presented in skeletal form without authority are waived)