Labor Dispute (Be’er Sheva) 47968-07-24 Noya Dimri as Jamil Matalka

1. Introduction
2. At the heart of this lawsuit, which the plaintiff placed at no less than ILS 197,451, is the plaintiff's claim that she was fired by the defendant immediately, after she announced that she was pregnant.
3. The plaintiff petitions for a series of remedies: failure to notify the employee of working conditions; compensation for unlawful dismissal; Loss of severance pay; loss of convalescence pay; Loss of vacation; loss of pension; lack of a hearing; Non-pecuniary compensation.
4. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims but admits the differences to the plaintiff's credit: ILS 1,701 for convalescence pay differences, and ILS 2,603 for pension deposit differences.
5. We should note at this point that the claim should be dismissed for the most part in light of the plaintiff's conduct. As will be detailed at length below, the plaintiff, in bad faith, concealed from the defendant the news of her pregnancy, and even when she chose to inform him of this, she did not support her statement with a medical certificate.  In fact, up to the moment of writing these words, the plaintiff has not presented a real-time medical certificate confirming that she is pregnant.
6. To be precise: there is no dispute that the plaintiff was indeed pregnant at the time of her dismissal, but that she made sure to notify the defendant of this only retroactively, after she had already been fired.
7. In these circumstances, it is clear that the defendant did not know, at the time of the plaintiff's dismissal, that she was pregnant, and therefore in any case it is not possible to attribute to the defendant the dismissal of an employee in violation of the law.
8. To this, we will add that the defendant's conduct even before the plaintiff's dismissal also indicates that the plaintiff's dismissal stemmed from a reduction in the scope of work and manpower.
9. As we will detail in detail below, the plaintiff's version turned out to be inconsistent, with significant gaps between her version as presented in the statement of claim and the version presented in the plaintiff's affidavit and interrogation, and gaps between the version she tried to present and the videos and transcripts of the conversations that were presented. In her interrogation, the plaintiff provided tight explanations for these discrepancies.  The plaintiff's bad faith conduct is disturbing to her and makes it impossible to accept her version regarding the bulk of the elements of the claim.
10. We found it appropriate to clarify this position before going into the thick of the matter, since the plaintiff emphasizes in her summaries that this is "a severe trampling on the dignity of a woman as she is a woman whose only 'sin' is her pregnancy" (section 1.1. to the plaintiff's summaries).
11. Indeed, the Women's Employment Law, 5714-1954 (hereinafter: the "Women's Employment Law") is a law with an important public purpose: to promote the status and integration of mothers into the workforce, and to protect parental rights in general. However, a situation in which the law is abused should not be accepted, while acting in blatant bad faith.  Such is the case before us.
12. This is the place to address the plaintiff's claim that the recordings presented by the defendant are not complete and edited in a tendentious manner. First, the plaintiff did not prove this claim, but even if there are indeed parts of the recordings that were omitted, what is in these recordings is sufficient for us to address the questions that arise in the proceeding, and we do not need to discuss what is not in them.
13. Let us therefore relate to the matter in more detail. Before we discuss the elements of the claim on its merits, we will present the factual basis as it emerges from the evidence.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916

1. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2) The Factual Sequence, as Evident from the Evidence

B.1.  The plaintiff's unpaid leave

13. The defendant is the owner of a law firm. The plaintiff worked for the defendant as a writ of execution clerk from April 18, 2023, until February 20, 2024, i.e., for about ten months.
14. On October 31, 2023, the plaintiff signed a letter entitled "Going on unpaid leave in light of a period of war". The certificate signed by the plaintiff reads as follows:

"I'm the undersigned...  I give my consent to be placed on unpaid leave for a period from 01.11.2023 until 01.02.24 due to a substantial reduction in the activity of the business, after the significance of this was explained to me and after a hearing."