[Spoom]

That sounds like it wasn't a contract in the first place. Doesn't it have to in some way bind both parties to be considered a contract?

I would almost think that a lawyer would be able to convince a judge that that "contract" was written so adversely that the "arbitrary change" clause should be struck, since the rest of the contract is essentially illusory if it remained.

[danielweber]

Assume you are correct and it is not a contract.

That doesn't mean the employee gets stock options. The contract granted the stock options. With no contract, there's nothing.

[Spoom]

Sure, but if it got into a courtroom, the judge would probably be apt to rule in favor of the party that didn't write the contract, so I would guess that rather than invalidating the entire contract, they would strike that provision. Not a lawyer though, so who knows.

[rwmj]

I think I left when I was 25 or 26, and I was in no position financially or otherwise to start legal action. That was 20 years ago and you live and learn.