See: Labor Dispute (Nazareth Areas) 22521-04-17 Liron Cohen Mizrahi - Club Hotel Tiberias in a Tax Appeal (Nevo 5.2.2019), and the references therein.
- In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for defects that occurred in the hearing process. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the matter, we have decided to place the compensation on the lower side.
- Therefore, the defendant will pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 5,000 for compensation for defects that occurred in the hearing process.
C.3. Compensation for Unlawful Dismissal
- The plaintiff claims that she was fired in violation of the provisions of the Women's Employment Law, and that the defendant's statement "I cannot employ while pregnant" proves the existence of a clear causal connection between the plaintiff's pregnancy and her dismissal.
- The plaintiff further argues that in our case, the "smear model" should be adopted, according to which the very existence of an improper consideration at the time of making the decision is sufficient in order to taint it as a discriminatory decision. The defendant, who is a lawyer, is presumed to be aware of the provisions of the Women's Employment Law.
- The defendant claims that the plaintiff is making a clear attempt to create a "retrospective narrative" that does not reflect reality as it occurred in real time. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff did not present confirmation of her pregnancy and that the defendant actively worked together with the plaintiff to check her version and to go over the times claimed by her with her.
- The defendant further argues that the plaintiff did not even prove that she had the result of a home test and claimed that she had erased the photograph, evidence that could have been considered in her favor (section 25).
- We are of the opinion that the claim should be dismissed on this component. And we will explain.
- The defendant proved that he did not need the plaintiff and that the decision to terminate her employment related to a reduction in the scope of the manpower in his office.
- The plaintiff herself testified and even wrote in the affidavit that the defendant was not interested in her return from unpaid leave. In fact, the plaintiff knew that the defendant did not want her to return to work at the beginning of February, even before the plaintiff herself claimed that she knew she was pregnant.
- In these circumstances, the obvious conclusion is that the plaintiff's dismissal was not related to her pregnancy.
- Moreover, as detailed above, the plaintiff did not present, neither in real time nor during the course of the proceeding, any medical evidence from real time proving that she was pregnant. As described above, the plaintiff claimed that she did not have the home test that she claimed she had conducted, and that the screenshot of the correspondence with the Ministry of Labor (which in any case does not constitute a medical certificate) was deleted for her, according to her.
- The case law clearly stated that:
"A statement by an employee that she is pregnant is not enough to establish an obligation under the Women's Employment Law to obtain a permit for dismissal. It is true that if an employee is asked to present a certificate of her pregnancy, she must present such a certificate, and only if it is presented, the employer is obligated to contact the supervisor in accordance with the law to obtain a permit for dismissal."