After considering the application, the court may decide to upforce the ADR clause or to consider it unenforceable, which has opened the way to a dispute. Rami Karzon worked for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. In 2011, the company sent an electronic arbitration policy that included an opt-out provision. Mr Karzon did not implement the opt-out procedure within the time limit. When Mr. Karzon was released in 2012, he filed a lawsuit for national origin, ethnic origin and religious discrimination based on his status as a Jordanian-born Arab Muslim. The company relied on the arbitration clause; the court submitted the claim to private binding arbitration. Karzon v. AT&T, Inc. 1.
The blocking of legal capacity in the form of the existence of an arbitration clause is of a relative nature, since the court will consider it only if it is raised by the defendant and the defence is invoked and justified on the merits before the case is convened. The court does not have the power to review it from the outset. Consequently, under Article 379 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the examination of the case by the national court, despite the existence of an arbitration clause, does not render the proceedings invalid. 1. Where the decision of the case belongs to the arbitral tribunal to which the parties have submitted the dispute for resolution, which court is specified in the relevant arbitration clause, only that arbitral tribunal and not the joint court in Poland shall have jurisdiction to rule on the case, irrespective of the legal nature on the merits or the source of the claimant`s claim. 1. The additional provisions relating to the expedited procedure shall apply if the parties have included them in their arbitration agreement or if the parties subsequently agree on their application. Such a party agreement on the implementation of an expedited procedure must be concluded at the latest when the reply to the request is filed.
2. Under the article of the Code of Civil Procedure. .