Attorney 'Fired Herself' Via Email, Then Discovered She Had Resigned

An Israeli labor court ruled that an attorney, Nurit HaRbest, who sent an email stating she considered her employer's lack of response a termination, effectively resigned. HaRbest began working for attorney Chai Bar-El in July 2020. Bar-El, who specializes in labor law and heads an anti-corruption organization, was facing a criminal case for a fatal traffic accident, for which he was later sentenced to 12 months in prison. HaRbest managed the office alone during this period.

The dispute began in May 2023 when a pension agent discovered missing pension fund contributions, informing Bar-El that HaRbest was no longer insured for disability and survivors' benefits. Bar-El admitted he initially dismissed it as a false alarm.

On November 6, 2023, HaRbest, feeling ill and frustrated, emailed Bar-El stating, "Since I have received no response from you... I consider your blatant disregard as a termination for all intents and purposes." The following day, Bar-El replied politely, suggesting she notify him and arrange a handover upon her recovery, and stated he would not argue whether she was fired or resigned.

HaRbest continued working, and her salary was still paid. Meetings in December and January saw Bar-El offer her alternative arrangements, including hourly work, freelance, or partnership, all of which she refused, citing her need for a stable salary as a mother of three. Bar-El claims they agreed on February 11 as her last day, but on February 25, he emailed her that their professional relationship had ended two weeks prior. The next morning, HaRbest found her access to the office computers blocked.

HaRbest filed a lawsuit for approximately NIS 210,000. The court, however, rejected her claim, ruling that an employee resigning in anger, known as "בעידנא דריתחא" (in a fit of rage), must explicitly retract their resignation within a reasonable time, which she failed to do. The court acknowledged the email was written in anger but found HaRbest did not prove she clearly and explicitly retracted it. Her explanation that subsequent meetings and continued work implied a retraction was not accepted, especially given her legal background.

The court also ruled that an employee cannot dictate terms of termination to an employer. The three and a half months HaRbest worked after the email were considered an extended notice period, due to her illness, negotiations, and a case requiring completion. Consequently, claims for severance pay, notice pay, and compensation for termination without a hearing were denied.

However, the court did rule in HaRbest's favor on several points. Bar-El's claim that she worked less than 5% of a full-time position was dismissed; the court determined she worked 60% of the time. Bar-El could not claim the employment ended on February 11, as she continued working until February 25, making her eligible for wages for those two weeks. The court also found Bar-El unlawfully deducted three vacation days and ruled she was entitled to compensation for receiving her employment terms notice nearly two years late, though this amount was reduced because she drafted the initial terms. Furthermore, Bar-El failed to prove he provided payslips from September 2022, leading to an administrative warning from the Ministry of Labor.

Ultimately, Bar-El was ordered to pay HaRbest approximately NIS 33,170, plus interest, covering vacation pay, wage differentials, payslip compensation, terms of employment compensation, and travel expenses. He was also ordered to pay NIS 3,000 in legal costs. Claims for other benefits were rejected.