There is no dispute that the argument between the plaintiff and the driver and his manager was loud and the plaintiff's arguments should be accepted that this was done on the street in front of passers-by, including her neighbors, while intensifying humiliation and humiliation in public.
This is an incident in which the plaintiff found herself having a loud confrontation while in a complex medical condition and later had to return home and wait several hours until another bus arrived.
The defendant did not apologize for her conduct, not even in retrospect.
- In ruling on compensation for prohibited discrimination and sexual harassment, the compensation must be adjusted so that it will help eradicate these unacceptable phenomena. Compensation must create an effective deterrent against exclusion from receiving services and sexual harassment.
In our case, the gap between the severe response towards the plaintiff and the leniency with which the defendant's employees acted in light of an illegal "demand" that was placed before them is, as stated, outrageous and intolerable. The matter is even more serious in light of the fact that this is a demand that was created out of thin air in light of a mistake by the driver that was not corrected by his manager, so that the defendant's employees created an incident, did not stop at any stage to examine the matter or take the measures at their disposal that could have prevented or reduced the harm to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, it is not the defendant's employees who acted from a place of sexual exploitation and/or treatment of the plaintiff as a sexual object intended to satisfy the desires of any of them, but rather sexual harassment based on degrading, shameful and humiliating treatment of the plaintiff due to her dress - shorts and a tank top.
As stated, the conduct of the defendant's employees does not express their personal position in relation to women in general and the plaintiff in particular, but rather an erroneous interpretation of them and an unacceptable response to the demand they attributed to the defendant.
- The defendant argued that the remedies claimed, both by virtue of the Prohibition of Discrimination Law and thePrevention of Sexual Harassment Law, are for the same factual set and therefore it is a matter of double compensation for the same wrong, and in support of this, she referred to Civil Case 5901-09 Yakubovich et al. Yad HaShmona et al. [Nevo] (September 3, 2012) for the appeal of other municipal applications 5116-11-22 Yad HaShmona v. Yakubovitz et al. [Nevo] (June 17, 2014) and to a civil case in expedited proceedings 35061-07-16 Zilberg v. Triple C [Nevo] (4 August 2017).
I accept the defendant's position that the plaintiff should be awarded compensation in respect of one of the laws. Even given that an event gives rise to compensation by virtue of a number of pieces of legislation, this does not mean that the injured party is entitled to compensation for each of them.