Court Temporarily Orders Carrefour to Reinstate Employee with Cancer

What Happened

The employee had worked continuously for the chain since 1995, dating back to the Ribua Kahol and Mega era. He began as a vegetable seller and later became manager of the vegetable department at a Tel Aviv branch. Due to lung cancer and two surgeries, an occupational physician limited his workday to six hours. In March 2025, he was transferred to a regular position at another branch, and in August 2026 he was dismissed on the grounds of organizational restructuring.

The Parties’ Positions

The employee argued that the real reason for his dismissal was his medical condition and reduced working hours. Carrefour said it had implemented a general workforce-reduction plan, under which it dismissed approximately 70 employees in July alone, and that the claimant’s position had been eliminated. According to the chain, no suitable vacant position was found, and the job advertisements submitted by the employee were outdated.

Why the Court Intervened

Judge Tomer Silora noted that, at this stage, Carrefour had not presented evidence that other employees had been dismissed or that the reduction plan itself existed. The chain also failed to prove that it had checked for suitable positions at all relevant branches, including large stores near the employee’s home. Because his claim that he had worked faithfully for many years was not refuted, the burden of proving the lawfulness of the dismissal shifted to the employer, which has not met it thus far.

The Legal Basis and Defects in the Hearing

The court relied on the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, which prohibits discrimination and requires an employer to provide necessary accommodations, including changes to working hours and job requirements, unless doing so would impose an “undue burden.” The court also found defects in the invitation to the pre-dismissal hearing, as the employee was not informed of the details of the restructuring plan or the criteria for selecting candidates for dismissal. These violations may provide a basis for monetary compensation in the main proceeding, but they were not the basis for the interim reinstatement.

What the Court Decided

The court granted the application for interim relief and ordered Carrefour to continue the employment relationship pending a decision in the main proceeding. The employee is not guaranteed a return specifically to his former branch or former position; the court noted that his work could be assigned flexibly, taking his medical restrictions into account. No final ruling has yet been issued on whether discrimination occurred.

Latest legal news

• Two charged with recruiting foreign women for prostitution business
• Umm al-Fahm resident arrested on suspicion of extorting contractor
• Two charged with shooting at home and firing on pursuing police
• Red Cross prison visits not resumed months after High Court ruling