Microsoft Libya hired a Libyan citizen, Mahmoud Kedkad, to work as a Marketing Lead in Tripoli. Kedkad signed a one-year employment agreement (2010 Contract) providing that: 

This contract is subject to the prevailing labor law applicable in Libya. The Libyan courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any disputes that may arise in the future between the parties involved in this contract. 

The next year, Kedkad signed another contract (2011 Contract) with the following Article 10:

This Contract is subject to the provisions of Libyan Labor law No. 58 and its amendments and all other decisions, decrees, or regulations which have not been specifically mentioned in this contract. 

During the term of the 2011 Contract, revolution erupted in Libya. Microsoft Libya shut down and evacuated all of its employees, including Kedkad, to the United States. Microsoft then reassigned Kedkad to Dubai, but he told the company he could not go because of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) he had acquired from his exposure to horrible violence in Libya. He asked either to be assigned to a job in the U.S. or to have his duties modified. Microsoft fired him. 

Kedkad sued Microsoft in the U.S., alleging that it had violated his contact by firing him and also that it had refused to accommodate his PTSD disability as required by U.S. law. Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the case should be heard in Libya and under Libyan law. It argued that such a requirement was implied in the 2011 Contract and, furthermore, No. 58 of the Libyan Labor Law required it. However, because No. 58 had been repealed and replaced by Libyan Labor Law No. 12, Microsoft argued that No. 12 also applied and that this statute would also have required the case to be heard in Libya.

Questions:

1. Does Kedkad’s contract require that his lawsuit be tried in Libya?

2. Why do you think Microsoft made the employment contract with plaintiff subject to Libyan law, and not U.S. law? 

3. According to the court, did Plaintiff’s 2011 contract contain a forum selection clause? 

4. Did Microsoft’s catch=all clause provide a forum selection clause through other Libyan statutes? 

5. Why was it important that there be a strong connection between the catch-all clause and a forum selection clause?

6. Is there a way to guard against the possibility that a foreign country may suffer a revolution, negating current laws and contracts?