If it were purely medical considerations, in which it was necessary to prefer the defendant's eviction to the plaintiff, then the defendant's claims would have been true. However, in our case, we are dealing with a decision that was made regardless of the medical condition of the plaintiff or the defendant in light of the improper demand that the plaintiff change clothes, and that in her refusal to do so, the defendant's employees preferred to drive the defendant and not the plaintiff. As stated, the defendant did not make any demand that the plaintiff change her clothes, and therefore the erroneous assumption under which the defendant's employees operated does not amount to a medical decision that is not protected by the Prohibition of Discrimination Law.
- The conclusions of the driver and manager on behalf of the defendant that the defendant objected to the plaintiff's travel in the car because of her "exposed" clothing, even though the defendant did not raise this argument, were the basis for the failure to provide service to the plaintiff. Even if the defendant had raised this argument, there would have been no room for the defendant's employees to comply with this unacceptable demand. Therefore, the defendant's employees made a prohibited demand against the plaintiff that she must change her clothes due to "exposed" clothing, refused to withdraw the demand, did not attempt to provide any response to the plaintiff and left her, sick, to return home and coordinate an alternative transportation on her own. In doing so, the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff and prevented her from receiving service in violation of the law.
- Section 4 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law, 5758-1998 states that "sexual harassment is any of the following acts:
(5) Degrading or humiliating reference directed at a person in relation to his sex or sexuality...".
- From the evidence before me, it emerged that the defendant's role was to verify the identity of the patient and drive him to the corona motel designated by the Home Front Command, and not to clarify the medical condition of the service recipients.
In practice, however, the defendant's employees held a lengthy conversation with the plaintiff about her "bare" clothing, in a conversation that was part of the conversation through the loudspeaker on the mobile phone when all passersby were exposed to it, and part of the time the conversation was loud on the part of those involved. The reference to the plaintiff's dress was humiliating and humiliating. In these circumstances, the defendant's employees refer to the plaintiff as sexual harassment as harassment in section 4 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law.