The CEO began to "make my daily life miserable at work, and to abuse me," by demanding permission from the plaintiff for every additional hour. She excluded her from the media, and turned to other employees to mediate between her and the plaintiff, thus creating an "absurd, degrading and humiliating situation."
The CEO's attitude towards her worsened even more after the lawsuit was filed. The CEO convened all the employees and told them in a "humiliating" manner about the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, emphasizing the personal lawsuit against her, with the aim of "humiliating" and sending a message to the employees that they would not cooperate with the plaintiff.
In addition, the CEO began to monitor the location of the union vehicle used by the plaintiff. On Yom Kippur after the lawsuit was filed, when the plaintiff was required to deal with the malfunction, the CEO insisted on coming to the union "to supervise my stay there," for the first time in 30 years.
During the COVID-19 period, the CEO "as a kind of personal revenge" did not allow the plaintiff to work from home and transferred issues in her care to other employees. The plaintiff concludes that all of these actions, including allegations against her regarding the exploitation of vacation and sickness and political pressure, constituted "real harm" to her and "amounted to abuse."
"From the moment the CEO was replaced, the injuries stopped," which strengthens the claim that this was personal behavior.
- The defendant's main arguments
The defendant denies all of the plaintiff's allegations of abuse and harassment, and claims that the lawsuit was filed in bad faith. The plaintiff actually received favorable and improved treatment and conditions over the years, both individually and in comparison to other employees. Dr. Rosen and the Association's management always acted professionally, in accordance with the rules of proper administration and in accordance with approvals from regulatory bodies, and rejected political pressures exerted by the plaintiff. The decisions regarding the plaintiff's salary and promotion were made after an in-depth examination and based on relevant considerations, and even the Histadrut confirmed that there was no discrimination.