Yuvalist chef fired after kosher supervisor asked him to prove he was Jewish

A seasoned professional chef who worked for the Yochananof supermarket chain and was transferred from a branch in Jerusalem to one in Rehovot found himself at the center of a highly sensitive dispute involving labor law, kashrut requirements, personal identity and employer authority. It began after a confrontation between him and the branch’s kosher supervisor. Following that exchange, the supervisor asked the chef to present his ID card to verify whether he was Jewish, and ordered him to stop cooking until the matter was clarified with the Rabbinate. Later, the chef was allowed to return to work, but under a significant restriction, he was forbidden to light fires or operate certain cooking equipment until the inquiry was completed. After these events and his dismissal, the chef filed a claim for 350,000 shekels against the chain, alleging discrimination, humiliation and invasion of his privacy.

At the center of the dispute between the sides was the question of whether the chef violated the instructions he had been given regarding lighting fires and operating cooking equipment. According to Yochananof, he was repeatedly and clearly informed that as long as the Rabbinate’s inquiry into his Jewish status had not been completed, he was absolutely forbidden to light fires or operate ovens in the kitchen. The chef, by contrast, argued that he had in fact carried out some of those cooking tasks in front of his managers and in front of the kosher supervisor himself, and therefore naturally understood that the restriction imposed on him was no longer in effect. He said that if none of the people on site stopped him at the time, it was reasonable to understand that he had effectively been given tacit approval to return to normal kitchen activity.

The tension between the sides reached its peak at the end of March 2020, when the chain’s management claimed that the chef had violated the explicit instructions he had received and had personally turned on the burners, ovens, grill and fryer in the department. As a result, the chain summoned him to a hearing, arguing that his actions could have caused significant damage to the business and even affected the validity of the kosher certification for the entire food department. At the end of the process, it was decided to fire him. He, for his part, argued that his dismissal was not due to any violation of instructions, but rather to a desire to get rid of him after he stood up for his rights and complained about the humiliating treatment he experienced.

In a surprising ruling, Yochananof emphasized in court that it had not initiated the religious inquiry, but had acted in accordance with kashrut rules and the demands of the authorized officials. In its view, the sole reason for the dismissal was a violation of an explicit instruction regarding lighting fires, while endangering the business’s kashrut certification. The Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court held that the mere fact of a Jewish-status inquiry as part of the kashrut requirements imposed on the business did not, in itself, amount to prohibited discrimination. In the end, the claim was dismissed.

Attorney Al Tzoref, founder of Tzoref & Co., who represents employers in labor law, explained that, “The court accepted Yochananof’s position that the decision to investigate the issue was not made by it, but by the kosher supervisor and the Rabbinate. The chain’s management tried to find solutions that would allow the chef to continue working, and no intent to harm or humiliate him was proven. The court found that the chef knew very well that he was not allowed to light fires or operate certain equipment in the kitchen, and that the claim that he had received ‘tacit approval’ to do so was not proven.”

He added that, “The claim was dismissed because the court found that this was a violation of a clear instruction, and that Yochananof had a legitimate and substantive reason to summon the chef to a hearing and consider the continuation of his employment. Some flaws were indeed found in the hearing process, mainly regarding the amount of time the worker was given to prepare for it, but the court believed that in the end his arguments were heard and taken into account before the final decision was made.”

Attorney Tzoref further said that on one hand, the court recognized that a Jewish-status inquiry can be a difficult and humiliating experience for an employee. On the other hand, it clarified that when the requirement is substantive and stems from the kashrut system and not from the employer itself, this does not necessarily amount to discrimination. It should be noted that the chef appealed the judgment to the National Labor Court, the highest instance in labor law, but the appeal was also rejected.