In the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff should be awarded compensation in accordance with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law, since in essence the incident was a violation of the plaintiff's right to dignity and privacy, due to the reference to her "exposed" clothing and not in accordance with the Prohibition of Discrimination Law.
- The defendant argued that even if there is room to obligate her with any kind of compensation, it will be in accordance with the minimal and marginal contribution to the mental anguish caused to the plaintiff, which in any case was done in good faith. I cannot accept this argument. The compensation in the law is without proof of damage, based on the assumption that mental anguish was caused by an act of sexual harassment, but there is difficulty in proving the extent of the damage. Although the plaintiff left me with the impression of a strong, opinionated girl who stood up for her rights, the difficulty in telling about parts of the incident was evident in her testimony, even after almost four years.
As noted, the compensation ruling also has an educational element for the general public in eradicating the phenomenon of sexual harassment.
- Once it has been proven that the defendant's employees treated the plaintiff in a humiliating and humiliating manner on the basis of her "exposed" clothing and even prevented her from receiving a service - evacuation to the Corona motel in the defendant's ambulance - I accept the claim and set the compensation to the plaintiff at the maximum amount prescribed by law in the sum of ILS 120,582.
The application for an injunction against the defendant
- The plaintiffs petitioned for an injunction instructing the defendant to publish a written clarification and to provide training to its employees, that it is forbidden to deny service on the grounds of sex and/or clothing, and that conduct such as the one in which its employees failed constitutes discrimination and sexual harassment that are prohibited by law.
- The defendant argued that if the claim is accepted, the judgment is sufficient for the defendant to draw lessons and there is no need for this order to be granted.
- After considering the arguments of the parties, I am convinced that in the circumstances of this case there is no room for granting the order. Indeed, I determined that the plaintiff was discriminated against in receiving service on the basis of her sexuality and dress, and she was entitled to compensation. At the same time, these are not defendant employees who chose not to provide service to the defendant, because they held positions to discriminate against a woman or sexually harass her. The defendant's employees failed to do so because they mistakenly thought that the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to enter the transportation vehicle because of her immodest clothing. Therefore, it is possible that if the defendant had clarified the procedures among its employees, they would have been able to provide an appropriate response to the plaintiff, or more precisely, to clarify the facts in their entirety, in which case they would have discovered that they had erred in the assumptions on which they acted.
From the testimonies of the defendant's employees, I did not get the impression that their conduct expressed their worldview, so they did not seek to impose their beliefs and lifestyles on the plaintiff. There is no indication that this is the defendant's perception of the organization.