Anat"[265] (emphases added - R.G.).
The plaintiff responded to the CEO's request more than a week later, on January 3, 2021, as follows:
"Hello Anat,
- That's right. That was my recommendation.
- That's right.
- You don't allow me to work from home, so when I'm sick I don't go to my work email.
- That's right.
- Okay.
- True, I received the computers on the afternoon of December 6, 2020 and started working on one of them.
- The next day I got sick and since then I've been on sick leave, except for one day I worked on December 20, 2020, and I also worked on another laptop. Please note that a new laptop needs a lot of installations (antivirus, Office, Office Lite, etc.). Connecting to the union's servers and adapting it to the employee.
- The computers are not ready yet, but if you want I can give them to you and give them to the employees, at your discretion.
- With regard to the plaintiff's claim regarding compartmentalization on the part of the CEO, we have not found that this is conduct that amounts to improper compartmentalization or abuse. Already at the management meeting on September 26, 2017, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Dr. Rosen noted that "when there is a malfunction, most of the time I turn to Doron Lahav and not to you, and so do other employees in the union, either you are not available, you are not always in the union, or you call Yan Understand." [267] This fact indicates that communication difficulties or bypassing direct channels of contact with the plaintiff existed even before the claim was filed, and were not born as a result of it.
Moreover, Dr. Rosen testified honestly about her feelings after the lawsuit was filed, and in particular after the plaintiff filed a personal lawsuit against her. She noted that "I was very hurt by Sylvie"[268] and that "after the lawsuit, it was more convenient for me to talk to Doron, who was in the union every day and understood these issues, and was Sylvie's manager."[269] This response, which expresses personal harm and a preference for managing affairs through a more direct and available manager, does not attest to malicious compartmentalization intent, but rather to a pragmatic adaptation to a complex relationship situation created as a result of the legal proceeding.