(b) The Factual Background
- The appellant served as a police officer in the Israel Police until his retirement due to his medical condition. The appellant filed a claim against the State of Israel, the Police Ombudsman, the Department for the Investigation of Police, the commander of the station where the appellant served and the appellant's direct command (defendants 1-5 respectively). In the lawsuit, the appellant claimed that his commanders harassed him because he was a person with a disability and against the background of the medical restrictions set for him. He claimed that this harassment caused a deterioration in his physical and mental condition, and therefore he was brought before a police medical committee, which determined that he could not serve as an investigator but could fulfill other duties, subject to restrictions. The statement of claim goes on to state that "the plaintiff should note that there was no attempt to find him other positions, due to the defendants' 'contamination' of his personal file, and therefore he was fired from the police" (paragraph 11 of the statement of claim). The appellant claimed the following remedies:
"A. Compensation for loss of earnings in the loss of pension payments – and since the plaintiff is not working due to his illness and was dismissed by retiring 50% of his pension, and this in fact without the tort committed against him, he would have retired with 70% of the pension. Therefore, calculating the compensation 20 percent loss of pension contributions... The amount of compensation is NIS 806,400.
- Compensation without proof of damage under Section 7A of the Prohibition of Defamation Law in the amount of NIS 50,000.
- Compensation without proof of damage under Section 195(b) of the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, 5758-1998 in the amount of NIS 50,000.
- Compensation for pain and suffering for the events."
- The state filed a motion to dismiss the claim against defendants 2, 3 and 5 in limine in the absence of substantive jurisdiction and/or in the absence of causes, as well as to dismiss out of hand remedies that are not within the jurisdiction of the court and in the absence of cause. The State argued that the appellant does not distinguish between the various defendants and does not specify what the cause of action is against each of the defendants, and that this is sufficient to dismiss the claim out of hand. As for defendant 5, who served as the plaintiff's direct headquarters for less than a month, it was claimed that the statement of claim did not disclose cause of action against her. It was further stated that this is not a trailing authority to hear the personal claims against the defendants since the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are based on their actions by virtue of their role and the powers granted to them by law. The state further argued that the claim would require a decision, even if only in a gratuitous manner, in matters listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, and for this reason as well, it should be dismissed out of hand.
- The appellant objected to the request and argued that the core of the claim did not deal with his dismissal and that the Labor Court has unique jurisdiction to hear causes of action relating to the Equality Law by virtue of a special authority in this law. As for defendant 5, he claimed that she served as his commander for more than a month, and according to him, "the main point by virtue of her position arises the cause of action when she was a central and active partner in the plaintiff's threat that the defendant (Moti Hariv) was asked to motivate the plaintiff to cancel his restriction, so it can be understood from the transcript (Appendix B to the claim) that she did not open her mouth to the said objection and was aware of every proceeding that took place in the interview itself. And for this it has vicarious responsibility towards its commands." (Section 4 of the response).
- The Regional Court dismissed out of hand the main part of the claim, and ruled that the only remaining issue in the case was whether the Israel Police (defendant 1) and the station commander (defendant 4) violated the Prohibition of Defamation Law against the appellant, and if so, it would be proven what compensation the appellant was entitled to. With regard to the causes of action, the Regional Court ruled that although the relationship between police officers and the state is an employee-employer relationship, it is an employment relationship with special characteristics that derive from the uniqueness of service in the police. In accordance with Section 93A of the Police Ordinance, some of the matters that arise in the context of an employment relationship have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Labor Court. On the basis of this section, it was determined as follows:
".. The defendant is correct that all the causes of action that deal with the claims regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff's termination of employment in the police, and in general the claim for compensation for loss of earnings and loss of pension payments, the claim for non-pecuniary compensation by virtue of the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, and the claim for compensation for pain and suffering do not fall within the scope of the court's substantive jurisdiction. The ruling also held that the Labor Court does not have jurisdiction to hear matters detailed in Section 93A of the Police Ordinance, including financial claims based on the same grounds