Labor Appeal (National) 35753-03-24 Rosa Rochelmer – Shaare Zedek Medical Center Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Given on June 23, 2025

Counsel for the appellants – Adv. Riki Shapira Rosenberg, Adv. Gali Etzion

Counsel for the Respondent – Adv. Gil Agmon

Attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – Adv. Sivan Azoulay and Adv. Pierce Frash

Judgment

Judge Leah Gliksman:

We have before us an appeal against the judgment of the Jerusalem Regional Court (Judge Daniel Goldberg and public representative, Mr. Eliezer Kalai; Labor Dispute 58748-12-20) [Nevo].  In the judgment, the claim of appellant 1 (hereinafter –  the appellant) to cancel the respondent's (hereinafter – the hospital) decision to retire her was rejected, and within the framework of it, her claim that her forced retirement was tainted by discrimination on the basis of sex and age was rejected.

Factual background, according to the Regional Court's ruling:

1. The appellant, Dr. Rosa Rochelmer, born in 1953, is an expert in internal medicine and hematology. The appellant was employed at the hospital for about 28 years, from 1992 until December 31, 2020.
2. On June 3, 2019, the Director of the Human Resources Division of the Respondent (hereinafter – the Division) informed the Appellant that on May 31, 2020, she would reach the mandatory retirement age, and recommended that she begin her preparations for her retirement.
3. In January 2020, another request was made to the appellant on behalf of the Division, and a meeting was held at the initiative of the Division, during which her rights were explained to the Appellant, including the possibility of requesting a postponement of retirement.
4. After this meeting, on January 28, 2020, the Appellant approached Prof. Marin (hereinafter also – the CEO) in order to discuss her continued employment after she reached the age of 67. The meeting took place on March 10, 2020, at which the appellant was informed that her employment period would be extended until the end of 2020, without further extension.  The day after the meeting, the appellant received a message from Ms. Nili Shapira, who is in charge of medical coordination at the hospital, that "the hospital management has decided to extend your employment, beyond retirement age, as a senior specialist physician at 30% of the position, until December 31, 2020."
5. At the request of the appellant, another meeting was held between her and Prof. Merin in October 2020. At this meeting, the appellant expressed her desire not to terminate her employment on December 31, 2020, and Prof. Merin informed her that the decision regarding the termination of her employment on that date was final.
6. Close to the scheduled retirement date, on December 21, 2020, the appellant, through her counsel, approached the hospital, and claimed that her forced retirement was tainted by discrimination on the basis of sex and age. Therefore, she demanded the cancellation of the notice of her retirement.
7. The hospital's counsel announced that his position would be given at the end of an examination, but it was not completed, in view of the legal process taken by the appellant.

The Proceedings in the Regional Court:

8. On December 25, 2020, the appellant filed an urgent request for a temporary injunction in order to prevent her forced retirement.  Her request was rejected by the Regional Court's decision of February 14, 2021.  Request for leave to appeal the decision was denied (Request for Leave to Appeal 57505-02-21) [Nevo].
9. At the same time, the appellant filed the statement of claim in the main proceeding. In her lawsuit, the appellant argued that the hospital's decision to force her retirement, when other male doctors continue to work, is double discrimination on the basis of sex and age, and that the hospital did not examine her request to continue working in a genuine manner, with an open heart and a willing soul, and did not conduct a proper procedure in the matter.  The remedies to which the appellant petitioned were a permanent injunction prohibiting the termination of her employment, or alternatively, monetary compensation for her damages due to her forced retirement, in the amount of the difference between her salary and the benefit paid to her until the age of 75 in the sum of NIS 3,592,737, as well as non-pecuniary compensation for the humiliation and mental anguish in the sum of NIS 200,000.  For the purposes of a fee, the appellant placed her claim in the sum of NIS 1,500,000.
10. There were lengthy document discovery proceedings between the parties, during which documents were transferred to the appellant containing various data about the doctors employed at the hospital and pay slips.
11. The appellant testified in her affidavit about her experience, expertise, professional achievements and her contribution to the work of the department and the hospital, including in the field of clinical research, the management of a laboratory that serves not only the hospital that had a lot of revenue, the teaching of students, doctors and other staff, in addition to the treatment of patients; The appellant also testified about the satisfaction of her patients, who contacted the hospital on their own initiative with a request to cancel the decision to terminate her employment. and attached to the affidavit patients' requests to the hospital to cancel the decision to terminate her employment; The appellant also stated in the affidavit that the director of the department at the time of her retirement began working at the hospital after he reached retirement age, and that another senior physician in the department (whose name was not mentioned in the statement of claim, but it is clear that the reference is to Dr. Ashkenazi) continues to work for six years after retirement age, despite the fact that he does not have a rich academic background like her.
12. Also testified on behalf of the appellant: Reuven Or , an expert at the Center for Cancer Immunotherapy and Immunobiology Research at Hadassah Hospital, who testified in his affidavit about the appellant's skills, experience and professional achievements, inter alia, on the basis of consultations he held with her regarding the metallurgical patients; Dr. Amit Maliar – an expert in internal medicine and gastroenterology, who testified about the excellent treatment of the appellant's late father; Mrs. Liat Turgeman – was employed at the hospital under the appellant as a clinical research coordinator in the Hematology Department, which testified to the clinical studies in which the appellant was involved and that the appellant had a special specialization in CLL, she was a source of knowledge and experience and gave extensive advice to the hospital's doctors; Mr. Uziel Chen testified about Dr. Rochelmer's treatment of his mother, until her termination of employment, and attached to his affidavit was a letter from more than 20 patients who contacted the Minister of Health requesting to intervene in the hospital's decision to terminate the appellant's employment.
13. On behalf of the hospital, they testified:

Ms. Nili Shapira Degani – the hospital's medical coordinator, who testified in her affidavit that the guiding considerations in deciding whether to hire a doctor after retirement age are the needs of the hospital – whether it is possible to find a replacement for the retiring doctor and/or whether his expertise is in a rare field in which it is difficult to find doctors; She also testified that sometimes when the doctor is a sought-after doctor, both in terms of his profession and personally, the doctor continues within the framework of the hospital's private medical services activities or in other frameworks.  "In order to maximize the economic capabilities of this profession"; The appellant's profession or the demand for her services did not match the needs of the hospital since there is no shortage of the appellant's profession or specialization, and this was the consideration for her retirement regardless of gender; Regarding the employment of Prof. Rowe after he reached retirement age, she testified that in the past there was difficulty in recruiting specialist doctors, and therefore Prof. Rowe, who is a world-renowned expert, was recruited to work at the hospital after he reached retirement age on a special contract for several years.  In any case, Prof. Rowe retired from his job in October 2021, after the hospital contracted with a new department director who brought new doctors with him; Dr. Ashkenazi ceased to be a unit manager when he reached retirement age, and continued to work as a specialist physician, as is customary in the hospital; Today, there is no shortage of doctors in the Department of Hematology or in this profession in Israel, and therefore the decision to retire the appellant upon reaching retirement age was a decision in its place, the hospital responded to the appellant's request and extended her period of employment until December 31, 2020 on a partial basis, in order to give her the opportunity to receive the rank of professor, in view of the fact that retirement would have prevented her from receiving this rank.