Court Orders Carrefour to Reinstate Cancer-Stricken Produce Manager
A Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court has ordered the supermarket chain Carrefour to reinstate a 63-year-old produce manager who was fired after being diagnosed with cancer. The court ruled last Friday that the chain failed to prove the dismissal was part of a general efficiency drive or that it adequately searched for an alternative role matching the employee's medical limitations.
The employee has worked for Carrefour, and its predecessors Blue Square and Mega, continuously since 1995. Initially a produce manager, he later managed the produce department at a Tel Aviv branch. He has been battling lung cancer, undergoing two surgeries, and is currently limited to a six-hour workday per doctor's orders.
In March 2025, he was called for a hearing regarding a "organizational efficiency" change, which led to his reassignment to a simpler role at another branch. In July of this year, he was summoned for another hearing, this time concerning his termination. The notice cited organizational efficiency again, without mentioning any work deficiencies. The employee's representative requested information on the selection criteria for dismissal, which the company allegedly did not provide.
During the August 9 hearing, the employee's counsel argued that Carrefour was simultaneously hiring new staff and that the dismissal was due to his health condition and six-hour workday limit. Carrefour announced its decision to terminate him on August 16. The employee subsequently appealed to the Labor Court.
Carrefour contended the firing was part of a broad efficiency plan affecting many employees, including about 70 in July. They claimed to have previously found a suitable role for him but that his position was eliminated in the restructuring, and no other suitable vacancy existed. The company argued it is not obligated to find an alternative role at all costs or conduct an unlimited search across all branches, especially during a period of efficiency measures. They also stated the job ads presented by the employee were old and irrelevant.
Judge Tomer Silora granted the employee's request for temporary reinstatement, ordering his continued employment pending the main lawsuit's resolution. The court found Carrefour had not proven the dismissal was part of a general, widespread efficiency and redundancy plan, noting the absence of evidence of other employee terminations. The judge emphasized that Carrefour did not present any evidence of other employees being laid off during the proceedings. He added that even if efficiency measures were proven, the court would examine the scope of the plan and whether the employee's case was considered in good faith.
The court determined there was a reasonable basis to believe the employee was discriminated against due to his disability, violating the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law. The burden of proof that the dismissal was lawful was placed on Carrefour, which the company had not met. The judge highlighted that employers must make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees, including adjusting work hours and job requirements, provided it doesn't impose an "undue burden."
Carrefour's failure to investigate alternative roles across its numerous branches, including large ones near the employee's residence, was noted. The judge called it a "clear case justifying enforcement," particularly given the employee's tenure, condition, and age, stating that a produce manager's situation differs from that of a deputy CEO. The employee did not insist on returning to his previous branch and appeared willing to be flexible regarding his job definition within his health limitations.
The court also found procedural flaws in the dismissal process, including a vague summons for the hearing that prevented the employee from adequately preparing his defense. Information was allegedly withheld during the hearing itself, suggesting the decision to terminate may have been predetermined. These procedural issues could lead to financial compensation in the main lawsuit but were not considered in the decision to reinstate him.
