National Labor Court Overturns Sexual Harassment Ruling Against Manager
The National Labor Court has overturned a NIS 100,000 compensation award to a female employee of a cyber company who had sued her former manager for sexual harassment and retaliation. The court ruled that it was not proven that the manager had sexually harassed the employee while she was his subordinate in her role as HR manager.
The case began when the plaintiff sued the manager for NIS 2.4 million, alleging he forced explicit sexual conversations on her and sought her dismissal after she complained. Initially, the manager expressed dissatisfaction with the employee's performance and suggested her termination. Following an attempt by the company to mediate, the manager and employee agreed to try and improve their working relationship.
During a subsequent meeting to discuss professional matters, the conversation shifted to personal topics. The employee claimed the manager detailed his sexual experiences with men graphically and unexpectedly. The manager, however, stated he shared intimate details about his sexual identity to build trust, including an experience at a strip club and questioning his own potential homosexual tendencies. He asserted the employee showed interest and asked numerous questions, even inquiring about his wife's awareness of his potential orientation, and then shared her own intimate experiences.
The manager later informed the employee of his decision to terminate her employment. The employee had recorded a conversation where she claimed harassment, and sent the manager a draft legal letter detailing her allegations, including claims he had fallen in love with her during her interview and harassed her with inappropriate communication hours. An internal investigation by a retired judge found evidence of environmental sexual harassment through sexual discussions, questions, and remarks of affection and attraction, and also found evidence of retaliation. The investigator, however, did not find sufficient evidence of workplace bullying or occupational retaliation. Following these findings, the manager resigned.
The National Labor Court characterized the conversation as a complex "coming out" discussion by a married, religious man about a past event that did not contain a sexual message directed at the employee. The court gave significant weight to the fact that the employee recorded the conversation but did not submit the recording, which worked against her. The court also noted that the employee actively encouraged the manager to speak openly and asked unnecessary personal questions. The court dismissed the employee's claim of retaliation.
Despite overturning the compensation award, the court decided not to order the employee to pay legal costs, aiming to avoid discouraging future sexual harassment claims. The manager's lawyer hailed the ruling as a reminder that not all personal workplace conversations constitute sexual harassment, while the employee's lawyer criticized the decision, arguing it legitimizes powerful men forcing sexual conversations on subordinates and undermines protections for working women.
