A employee at the Pelephone cell phone company replaced the profile picture in her personal Facebook account, where she identified herself as a company employee, with a photo of someone who carried out a stabbing attack against a boy in Jerusalem. She was fired immediately without a hearing.
On the same day, the Company's human resources director-general published a letter to employees, in which "the dismissal of a worker who expressed support for terror activities" was reported without mentioning the name of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a claim with the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court for compensation for unlawful dismissal, libel, and mental distress in the amount of more than NIS 160,000.
The case was discussed by a Labor Court headed by Judge Kamel Abu Ka'ud, and was attended by public defenders Yosef Kasi and Haim Brill.
From the testimony of the parties in the court, the discrepancy between each side's interpretation of the incident and the significance of publishing the picture of the terrorist on the prosecutor's Facebook page was evident.
The Court was impressed that on the one hand in publishing the photo the plaintiff did not seek to identify with the act of terrorism, but rather it was her way to mourn a good friend who died, and on the other hand, the defendant, who did not do enough to clarify the matter in depth, believed at least on the date of the dismissal that with publication of the attacker's picture on the Facebook page, she expressed support for an act of terror.
The Court ruled that a disciplinary hearing was never held, and that a "hearing by way of text message" proposed by the defendant as an alternative to the decision making process is an oxymoron and can not replace a dialogue, a practical argument, or intelligent confrontation between the sides regarding the claims, without looking at various other considerations.
According to the court, the defendant could have chosen a less extreme measure, such as sending the plaintiff for leave until a legal hearing is held in lieu of her immediate dismissal, and since the defendant failed to do so, there is no choice but to state that the dismissal process was defective.
The court accepted the claim for compensation for unlawful dismissal and compensation for mental anguish and awarded the plaintiff compensation in the amount of NIS 40,000 and legal expenses and attorney's fees of NIS 5,000. The court rejected the claim for compensation under the Defamation Law.