Court Awards Firefighter $27,000 After Workplace Harassment
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
A Haifa Labor Court ordered the National Fire and Rescue Authority to pay NIS 100,000 to firefighter Moshe Cohen for workplace harassment. The court found that Cohen was subjected to prolonged mistreatment, including removal from operational duties and verbal abuse by a senior official. The authority had claimed disciplinary issues and medical reasons for the actions, but the court sided with the firefighter, citing significant procedural flaws and ongoing harassment.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- A Haifa Labor Court awarded a firefighter NIS 100,000 for workplace harassment.
- The court found the firefighter endured prolonged mistreatment, including removal from operational duty.
- A senior official allegedly called the firefighter "criminal," "felon," and made other demeaning remarks.
- The National Fire and Rescue Authority denied the allegations, citing disciplinary issues and medical reasons.
- The court found significant flaws in the handling of the firefighter's removal from duty.
- The ruling sends a message about respectful treatment of employees in security organizations.
A Haifa Labor Court has ruled that a firefighter endured prolonged workplace harassment by his employer, including being removed from operational duty and subjected to demeaning remarks. The National Fire and Rescue Authority was ordered to pay him NIS 100,000 (approximately $27,000) in compensation.
The firefighter, Moshe Cohen, claimed that for several years he was systematically targeted. This included being kept from operational duties, transferred to maintenance work, prevented from attending professional courses, and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He also alleged that a former senior official in the Coastal District called him names such as "criminal," "felon," "his hands and legs need to be broken," and "you are disabled."
The Fire and Rescue Authority and the district commander denied the allegations of using demeaning names. They argued that the firefighter had numerous disciplinary violations and that his removal from operational duty was for medical reasons and his own well-being, following his presentation of a temporary disability document. Disciplinary actions were described as legitimate exercises of the authority's powers.
However, the court accepted the firefighter's version of events. It also heard testimony from a fire officer who admitted hearing the senior official call the plaintiff "criminal" and "felon" and make harsh statements about him. The court found significant flaws in the handling of the firefighter's removal from operational duty and the subsequent adjustment of his role without his consent.
Ultimately, the court determined that the series of events constituted ongoing workplace harassment that harmed the firefighter's career progression and reputation. The court emphasized that security organizations would not receive leniency regarding the respectful treatment of their employees, signaling this through the substantial compensation amount.
