In the framework of the proceeding, it was proven that both the decision regarding the positions for which tenders were published, which were intended to promote only five specific employees, and the decision on the prerequisites for the training of hazardous materials, were tainted by prohibited discrimination. [156] The defendant failed to meet the burden of proof that the conditions of the Hazardous Materials did not lead to a discriminatory result in the results of the tenders.
Against the background of the aforesaid, the plaintiff petitions for compensation in the amount of ILS 100,000 for the mental anguish component of discrimination, and for the non-pecuniary damage under the Equal Pay for Male and Female Employee Law. It should be noted that the plaintiff also includes in the defendant's compensation of ILS 100,000 an element of bullying, which will be discussed in a separate chapter below.
- The defendant's main arguments
The plaintiff's claims of discrimination, discrimination and career injury in the structural change proceedings and in the tenders must be rejected. The claim was filed in clear bad faith and the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required to prove her claims.
The new organizational outline, which was prepared between 2014 and 2016, was approved by the Ministries of Interior and Finance. This process was not carried out "in secret", but in public, with the participation of all the employees, and the union was even the first to complete the general organizational outline. In this framework, tenders were prepared for management positions and employment contracts, all of which were approved by the Ministries of Interior and Finance.
According to the new organizational structure, the plaintiff continued to serve as a computing and recycling coordinator, while maintaining all of her previous employment and salary conditions, including an additional 40 hours of air alert. The plaintiff's salary is the highest among the relevant officials, and her employment conditions were favorable.