When the defendant's attorney asked to understand the plaintiff's training to perform a hazardous materials alert in light of the fact that Dr. Rosen believes that the plaintiff is not qualified for this, the plaintiff replied: "There is no emergency preparedness, there is environmental alert.... and I am qualified for it."[107] (emphasis added - R.G.). The plaintiff did not clarify what she relies on in her claim that she had the skills required to go out for standby training in the years in which she was paid by this standby association.
- Against the background of the aforesaid, and in view of the fact that the plaintiff herself admits that the defendant stopped the hazardous hazards alert that was transferred to the Fire Brigade and that there is no longer a hazardous materials alert in the Association, her claim that Dr. Rosen misled the members of the association's management so that the plaintiff would not be able to go out for the preparation of the hazardous hazards alert and advance, she has nothing to rely on.
- The plaintiff's claim that the defendant preferred to give the hazardous materials alert to male employees over the female employees was also not proven. This is not the fact that in the 1990s, three men received a hazardous emergency alert, and continued to receive this alert all these years in order to point out gender discrimination. In this regard, it should be noted that during the plaintiff's cross-examination, it became clear that contrary to the plaintiff's claim that only men carried out a wide range of 160 hours of alert in the field of air and hazardous materials, and thus she was discriminated against on the basis of gender, two women also received alerts on the same scale. The plaintiff confirmed in her testimony that one employee received "150 hours, some of which were air and some of which were hazardous materials," and with regard to another employee, she replied that she "assumes that she also received these hours, 160, 180 hours." When the defendant's attorney asked, "It wouldn't surprise you that she received 160 hours," she replied, "No."
When the plaintiff was asked why she claimed that there was only "one call center" in the union, she replied that these were "different periods," and thus tried to ignore the data presented to her regarding women who had received similar alerts in the past. The plaintiff refrained from mentioning when each of the women who received 150 and 160 hours worked in the union and what their role and training were. The plaintiff's cross-examination shows that one of these employees had already retired (it was not clarified when),[108] and the other, like the male employees of her time, was still working at the time of the hearing of the evidence and even continued to receive payment for the on-call of the Hazardous Materials.[ [109] The plaintiff ignores the developments and structural change that have occurred in the association over the years, which have changed the nature of the alerts and the identity of those who carry them out.
- It should be added that even after Dr. Rosen's retirement, the current CEO, who replaced Dr. Rosen, did not authorize the plaintiff to carry out a hazardous emergency or environmental alert. When the plaintiff was asked in her cross-examination why the new CEO did not assign her to these positions, the prosecutor replied that the new CEO had told her in the introductory meeting: "I am not interfering." No evidence has been brought before us to support this claim. The plaintiff also did not claim in her affidavit of her main testimony that this was the position of the new CEO. The plaintiff further explained that "the current CEO is now doing a kind of strategic planning for the association." However, there is no dispute that the new CEO did not add to the plaintiff's air alert even afterwards. We accept the defendant's position that the fact that the new CEO also did not see fit to place the plaintiff on this alert strengthens the argument that the non-integration stemmed from practical considerations and not on a personal basis or against the background of gender discrimination, as claimed by the plaintiff.
- In summary, even though there was a flaw in the fact that the decision-making process regarding the employees entitled to the alert was not clear, orderly and transparent to all, this defect does not prove the plaintiff's entitlement to perform the alert or to go for training in the field. From the evidence brought before us, the conclusion emerges that the decision not to allow the plaintiff to perform a hazardous emergency alert or to send her to this specific training stemmed from professional and practical considerations and not from personal harassment or discrimination.
Website & Social Media Alert
- According to the plaintiff, she held the role of a website and social media manager, a position that was defined as very essential in the organization and involved working from home during unusual hours. [112] According to her, she was entitled to receive websites and social media alerts, which she was not paid, as opposed to paying this alert to the employee who performed the job before her. The plaintiff explains that beginning in October 2014, with the departure of the previous employee, Ms. Mark, she was transferred to her responsibility for the union's general website and the management of social networks. The plaintiff discovered that Ms. Mark received 25 hours of alert per month due to her availability to handle public inquiries on the website and on social networks, but the plaintiff's requests for these on-call hours were rejected by the CEO. 114]
The plaintiff noted that she herself was responsible for air quality and freedom of information web pages even before, reporting overtime for updates and response, but was never compensated for her availability after working hours. [115] The plaintiff testified that she expected to receive the same on-call hours as Ms. Mark, especially in light of the fact that Ms. Mark received this on-call while working full-time, while she performed the same job only part-time. [116] The plaintiff added that Ms. Mark did the work from home and received a computer from the union for this purpose, and that she herself did this work from home and the union, and reported overtime for her. 117]