Moreover, the members of the management viewed the plaintiff's conduct at the meeting, and in particular her attitude toward the CEO's late husband. Dr. Rosen testified that she felt deeply personal hurt when the plaintiff "mentioned my late husband in order to throw me off balance"[244], which was perceived as an unacceptable crossing of the line.
- The plaintiff's arguments regarding the nature of the management meeting of September 26, 2017, and in particular Dr. Rosen's statements during it, are all examined in the context of managerial prerogatives and legitimate professional considerations. References such as appointing employees based on the CEO's discretion, or comparing the plaintiff's skills to those of other employees while emphasizing their preference for certain positions, reflect a legitimate professional assessment of suitability for emerging positions in the organization, and do not necessarily constitute a personal attack. Even the statement that "if a person feels that he is not getting what he deserves and is blessed with talents, he can leave for another place of work," even though it is bluntly worded, does not establish a cause of abuse. Moreover, the aforesaid statement should be taken into account against the background of all the things that were said before that sentence: "There are people who worked in the union until they felt that they were not exhausting themselves and wanted to move forward and left for another job. I supported and helped them find a job in all of them, and some of them I still accompany today... (Dr. Rosen lists the names of 6 employees - R.G.) In all the years that Sylvie feels deprived, many positions have been opened for managers in city associations and other local authorities." The lack of negative feedback on ongoing performance does not negate the employer's right to assess the employee's suitability for new or advanced positions, especially against the background of structural and organizational changes. Therefore, an examination of the totality of the matter reveals that these disputes are based on professional-managerial assessments and considerations, and not conduct that establishes a cause of abuse at work.
- As for the demand from the plaintiff to fill out two-hour reports, indeed, an initial glance at such a demand may give rise to perplexity and concern that it is harassment. However, against the background of the above and the totality of the evidence that was brought before us, we were persuaded that this demand was professional, against the background of the plaintiff's repeated complaints that she works harder than others and earns less, and not with the intention of abusing the plaintiff.
Thus, Dr. Rosen testified that the demand for reports stemmed directly from the plaintiff's own claims regarding her remuneration and workload. Dr. Rosen testified in this regard: "There was a meeting, a board meeting in which Sylvie laid out all her claims and her feelings and what she thinks... Following that meeting, the chairman of the union issued a letter, he asked her to show it, he was not impressed at the meeting that she was really not compensated for what she was doing, and then he asked her in a letter for a report, to submit a report, and he asked me where the report was. Later, Dr. Rosen reiterated that: "The other employees did not, no, she claimed that she worked above and beyond and was not compensated, she was unable to convince all the board members at that meeting. Then they decided they wanted to see a report."