Labour8/30/2026

Court: A Manager’s Disclosure to an Employee About His Sexual Orientation Does Not in Itself Constitute Harassment

The National Labor Court accepted the appeal of a former manager at a startup company and overturned the order requiring him to pay NIS 100,000 for sexual harassment and retaliation. The court ruled that the employee had not presented sufficient evidence and that an intimate conversation about the manager’s attraction to men did not in itself constitute a violation of the law.

Key facts

•Court: National Labor Court
•Date of the conversation: April 7, 2021
•Overturned: NIS 50,000 for harassment
•Overturned: NIS 50,000 for retaliation
•Legal basis: Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law
•Case number not stated in the source

The Dispute Between the Manager and the Employee

The employee began working as the human resources manager at an Israeli cybersecurity company in February 2021 and reported directly to one of its founders—the director of the development center in Israel. Following professional disagreements, he informed the U.S. management in early April that he believed her employment should be terminated, but she was granted an additional probationary period.

The Conversation and the Complaint

On the evening of April 7, 2021, after an extended work-related conversation, the two moved on to personal topics. The employee claimed that the manager recounted explicit sexual details and then spoke about his attraction to her and his love for her; the manager, however, insisted that, in response to personal questions, he shared with her his doubts about his sexual orientation and the possibility that he was attracted to men. After the complaint was filed, the company appointed an external review committee chaired by retired Judge Dina Efrati, which concluded that some of the allegations were substantiated, after which the manager resigned.

The Lower Court’s Decision

The Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court partially accepted the employee’s claim. It awarded her NIS 50,000 for sexual harassment and an additional NIS 50,000 for retaliation, attaching significance, among other things, to a secret recording of a confrontation in which the manager did not deny each of the allegations raised one after another.

Why the Payment Order Was Overturned

The National Labor Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence of harassment. Judge Dori Spivak noted the mutual nature of the discussion about sexual orientation and stated that the alleged recording of the April 7 conversation had not been submitted to the Regional Labor Court; moreover, the correspondence between the parties did not indicate sexual attraction on the manager’s part. The court stressed that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law does not prohibit every intimate or sexual conversation in the workplace, but that a supervisor must exercise particular caution in the context of power relations.

Outcome of the Appeals

The manager’s appeal was accepted, and the order requiring him to pay a total of NIS 100,000 was overturned; the employee’s appeal was rejected. At the same time, the court did not accept the claim that she had used the law in bad faith for the purpose of extortion or preventing her dismissal. The court also did not order her to pay legal costs, in order to avoid creating a chilling effect on the filing of sexual harassment claims.

What this means for you

A personal conversation about sexual orientation in the workplace does not, by itself and automatically, constitute sexual harassment: context, mutuality, and evidence of unwelcome conduct are important factors. Nevertheless, a relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate requires greater caution, and the clearer the power disparities, the more important it is to establish that the managerial position was not abused.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings