Labor Appeal (National) 30585-09-12 Human Solutions Implementation Company in Tax Appeal - Bossi [Nevo] (August 4, 2013);
Labor Appeal (National) 16117-07-10 Israela Hasson - Ravikovich - 3M Israel in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (December 19, 2013);
Labor Appeal (National) 11260-10-13 Formica Averbuch Center in Tax Appeal - Yafit Farber Gali [Nevo] (November 14, 2016).
Labor Appeal (National) 22802-04-16 Hodaya Shoshana Gamami - Mizrahi Tefahot Bank in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (September 12, 2018);
Sharon Rabin-Margaliot, the elusive case of discrimination at work - how do you prove its existence? Hapraklit 44 529 (1998) 46.
- As stated, the Regional Court rejected the appellants' arguments that in accordance with section 9 of the Equality Law, the burden of proof is on the hospital that the decision to reject the appellant's request to continue working after the age of 67 and terminate her employment was not tainted by discrimination, as detailed below.
First, the claim must be examined on the basis of the provision of section 9(a)(1) of the Equality Law, which deals with hiring, promotion at work, working conditions, sending for professional training or training, and severance pay, and not according to section 9(a)(2) of the Equality Law, which deals with dismissal from work. This is because the termination of an employment relationship following the employee's attainment of retirement age, in accordance with section 4 of the Retirement Age Law, is not a "dismissal", but rather part of the employee's working conditions. The employer is authorized to retire an employee even if his behavior or actions did not cause the termination of employment.
Second, the appellants did not establish the conditions for reversing the burden of proof. The appellant's claim that her skills are no less than those of Dr. Ashkenazi, who continued to work at the hospital after retirement age, is "an argument of expertise. The court does not have the tools to examine it without expert testimony. The plaintiff did not bring expert testimony." In any event, the testimonies on behalf of the appellants of Prof. Or and Dr. Maliar do not deal with a comparison of the appellant's skills with those of Dr. Ashkenazi. In addition, the Regional Court adopted Prof. Marin's testimony that in view of the specialization of the fields of medicine and the creation of subspecialties within the medical fields, there is a real difficulty in comparing the skills of the appellant and Dr. Ashkenazi, and the fact that they are hematologists does not allow for a technical comparison of their skills. Therefore, "this is a very professional and complicated matter, which the court does not have the tools to evaluate, and it is at the core of the managerial judgment of the defendant's CEO."