Health Fund Pays $10,000 After Lawyer Worked Nine Years Without Official Title

A woman who worked for Israel's largest health provider, Clalit Health Services, for nine years believing she was the district's legal counsel, will receive NIS 38,000 (approximately $10,000) in compensation. Alona Tohar Cohen was hired in 2014 as an economist but her contract noted she was a "lawyer by training, and therefore will provide legal advice to the district as required." In practice, she handled tenders, reviewed supplier agreements, and provided legal assistance. Various Clalit officials referred to her as the "district legal advisor" in emails and correspondence.

However, an official legal counsel position did not exist in the northern district; such roles were only available at the central legal department. The regional labor court in Nazareth ruled that Tohar Cohen was not officially employed as legal counsel but rather in the capacity stated in her personal contract. She herself admitted during cross-examination that there was no official position for legal advisors at the time of her hiring.

The court also dismissed her claims that a district administrator retaliated against her after she accused him of "zigzagging" on a tender for clinic signs in 2016. The court found no evidence of the alleged dispute and noted that correspondence showed the administrator supported her recommendation to cancel the tender. The court characterized a district manager's comment about "pitying" her as condescending rather than hostile.

Clalit created a new role, "legal consultant," in 2018, and Tohar Cohen applied. After a long delay, she was officially rejected in early 2023. Following a hearing, she was offered an alternative position, which she refused, and her legal responsibilities were subsequently reduced without affecting her salary.

While the court found that professional decisions regarding tenders and her job application were made for objective reasons, it criticized Clalit's handling of the situation. The head of human resources for the district acknowledged the process was not handled properly. The court concluded that the ambiguity surrounding her role was convenient for district staff who benefited from her legal work instead of contacting the central legal department, leading to her feeling undervalued. The court stated that Clalit's failure to resolve the issue over the years did not constitute good faith conduct.