The defendant's attempt in its summaries to present the defendant as someone who might have escaped from the vehicle if the plaintiff had gotten over him was claimed in vain and without any basis. Even if the defendant had left the vehicle, it is not clear that he would not have returned to it, if the implications had been made clear to him, including the consequences of the arrival of police officers at the scene to deal with the violation of the Corona guidelines.
- Discrimination is prohibited even if there was no intention to discriminate and therefore the claim against the defendant was accepted (High Court of Justice 453/94 Women's Lobby in Israel v. Government of Israel, at p. 524), [Nevo], but this will affect the relationship between the defendant and the Ayalon Company. In the test of the result, the actions of the defendant's employees constitute prohibited discrimination and sexual harassment, and it does not matter that they mistakenly thought that this was the defendant's demand. Whether the defendant demanded it or not, they were absolutely forbidden to set dress requirements for the plaintiff, as they did. The fact that this was done due to a mistake in the demand attributed to the defendant does not raise or lower the existence of prohibited discrimination or sexual harassment in the acts.
- In awarding compensation, weight must be given to the circumstances of the incident. On the one hand, we are dealing with the prevention of emergency service - the transportation of a medical patient in an ambulance of a confirmed COVID-19 patient to a corona motel operated by the state and intended to provide a comprehensive response to patients. This is a young woman who lives alone, who needed assistance, and therefore it was decided that she would be transferred to a Corona motel.
The driver presented the plaintiff with a fact that she would not be able to board the bus in the manner she was dressed - shorts and a tank top. The plaintiff's requests were not answered, and therefore she contacted the driver's manager, who backed up the decision and insisted that the plaintiff change her clothes or not join the trip.