Channel 13 Seeks to Void Settlement With Reporter Neta Lee Shem-Tov

Channel 13 has requested to void a settlement agreement with journalist Neta Lee Shem-Tov, just days after it was reportedly reached. The network claims the agreement was breached when Shem-Tov's political party, 'Amcha Israel,' led by Ofer Vinter, issued a statement revealing that Channel 13 had agreed to pay her approximately 700,000 shekels.

Channel 13 vehemently denied the party's statement, calling it a "false publication." The network asserted that the labor court had previously informed Shem-Tov that her claims lacked a basis and recommended she settle for only a portion of her employment contract's value. According to Channel 13, the court dismissed her lawsuit for 3.5 million shekels, which included allegations of harassment, discrimination based on political views, wrongful termination, damage to reputation, and emotional distress.

The dispute stems from Shem-Tov's contentious tenure at Channel 13, which began in July 2023. Her relationship with management reportedly soured over her refusal to oppose the appointment of certain executives and her subsequent accusations of workplace harassment and forced political agendas. The conflict escalated when she was sidelined from her hosting duties during a significant news event, leading to her prolonged absence from the air.

Shem-Tov subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging severe harassment, a hostile work environment, and breach of contract. Channel 13 countered that her claims were a "cynical use" of harassment allegations to cover up her own issues, including alleged non-appearance for broadcasts during wartime and accumulated employee complaints.

The labor court had previously indicated it would not force the continuation of the employment relationship, leading to the dismissal of requests for injunctions against her termination and directing the parties toward settlement. The reported settlement was intended to conclude the highly publicized conflict, but Channel 13 now claims Shem-Tov's party violated the agreement's confidentiality clause, prompting their decision to cancel it.