## Facts

- Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was a nongovernmental organization providing medical care within the Palestinian territories.
- Hatem Tamimi (also rendered “Tamim” in some secondary listings) was a former MSF employee.
- MSF issued a policy manual addressing workplace terms and procedures for its employees.
- The policy manual included an arbitration provision stating that disputes would be referred to arbitration.
- A lawsuit arising out of the MSF–Tamimi employment relationship was brought in a lower (trial) court.
- The trial court judge decided not to “accept” the case (i.e., declined to proceed at the filing/initial stage).
- MSF appealed the trial court’s non-acceptance to the Palestine Court of Appeal sitting in Ramallah.
- The appellate matter was registered as Case No. 409/2011, and judgment issued on 28 November 2011.
- Openly accessible sources do not provide the trial court’s detailed reasoning, the specific claims pleaded, or the wording and execution details of the arbitration provision (for example, whether it was separately signed or incorporated into an employment contract).

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitration clause contained in an employer’s policy manual can require that an employment-related dispute be resolved in arbitration rather than in court.
2. Whether, given such an arbitration clause, a Palestinian trial court may decline to accept (or proceed with) a lawsuit filed by or against a former employee.
3. On appeal, whether the trial court’s decision not to accept the case should be set aside or sustained in light of the asserted obligation to arbitrate.

## Decision

- The Palestine Court of Appeal (Ramallah) issued its judgment on 28 November 2011 in Case No. 409/2011 in an appeal brought by MSF from a trial-court decision declining to accept the case.
- Publicly available materials accessible without restricted databases do not disclose the appellate court’s operative disposition (for example, affirmance, reversal, remand, or an order directing arbitration).
- Publicly available materials accessible without restricted databases also do not disclose the appellate court’s reasoning, any legal tests applied, or how the court addressed formation, scope, or enforceability of the arbitration clause.

## Legal Principles

- An agreement (or asserted agreement) to arbitrate may affect whether a court will hear an employment dispute, including whether the court stays or declines proceedings in favor of arbitration.
- Disputes about arbitration clauses in workplace materials commonly turn on questions of consent/assent, incorporation into the employment relationship, the scope of covered disputes, and any mandatory limits on arbitrating employment rights under applicable law.
- Where a trial court declines to proceed at an early stage based on an asserted arbitration obligation, appellate review typically focuses on whether the arbitration commitment is legally binding and procedurally enforceable, and what the proper procedural step should be (continuation in court, stay pending arbitration, or other relief).
- Because the text of the judgment is not available in open sources, no case-specific rule statement or court-adopted standard can be stated here without speculation.

## Conclusion

Judgment of 28 November 2011, Hatem Tamimi v. Medecins Sans Frontieres, Case No. 409/2011 (2011) concerns an employment-related dispute in which MSF relied on an arbitration clause in its policy manual after litigation was filed in a trial court; the trial judge declined to accept the case and MSF appealed to the Palestine Court of Appeal in Ramallah, but open-source materials do not provide the appellate court’s final disposition or reasoning.
