The plaintiff did not ask to summon the employee to testify about the incident, and it was therefore found that he did not prove the humiliating incident that he claiMs. Moreover, even if we assume that it may have occurred, this is not an event that justifies compensation. It should also be noted that "naturally, the dismissal of an employee or the transfer of him to another position to his chagrin... with anguish and frustration" (Labor Appeal (National) 360/99 Cohen v. State of Israel, PDA 38, 1 (2002)), but only in appropriate cases will compensation be awarded. Given our determination that there was no flaw in the dismissal process itself or in the reasons for the dismissal, the plaintiff's dismissal is not one of the cases that entitle him to compensation for mental anguish, and the matter is clear.
We also reject the plaintiff's claim for compensation for filing the lawsuit or the future publication of his name in the legal databases, which are results that accompany the exercise of the right of access to the courts and do not entitle to compensation. The plaintiff's claim of loss of income following the filing of the lawsuit was not proven, and no remedy should be awarded in respect of it.
Wages for the period from May 30, 2023 until the date of the plaintiff's commencement of employment
- In his summaries, the plaintiff claimed that Mr. Kfir Barak confirmed in the cross-examination that on May 30, 2023, the plaintiff held a work meeting with Mr. Haim Alkobi, and that he subsequently postponed the commencement of the plaintiff's work to June 11, 2023. Therefore, he is claiming wages in the amount of ILS 14,000 for the period from May 30, 2023 to June 10, 2023, which is in fact compensation for postponing the date of the start of his employment until June 11, 2023, during the period in which he had no income.
The plaintiff interrogated Mr. Kfir Barak at length about this period (from p. 47, line 28, to p. 51, line 3), even though during the cross-examination, counsel for the defendant reminded the plaintiff that he had not claimed wages for days that were not paid to him (p. 50, lines 7, 9, 12). And in fact, she objected to the line of interrogation.