Labour8/16/2026

Municipality Held Liable for Harassment Even Without Direct Subordination

The National Labor Court ruled that the municipality was liable because it failed to prove that it had taken reasonable measures to prevent sexual harassment. An employee of a municipal corporation was awarded NIS 50,000 in compensation from the municipality, even though she was not directly subordinate to it.

Key facts

•Court: National Labor Court
•The judgment was issued in May, and the article’s publication date is August 16, 2026
•Period of harassment: 2012–2015
•From the municipality: NIS 50,000 and NIS 7,500 in costs
•From the former director: NIS 600,000 and NIS 25,000 in costs
•Statute: Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law

What Happened

An employee hired in 2012 as a cleaner at a municipal corporation alleged that a municipal department director offered to arrange work for her in exchange for having sexual relations with him on a regular basis. At the same time, the director represented the municipality on the corporation’s board of directors. The Regional Labor Court accepted the employee’s account and found that the senior official had substantial influence over her employment status and that he abused a relationship of authority.

Why the Municipality Was Found Liable

The National Labor Court clarified that an employer’s obligations under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law do not apply only to its direct employees. The protection extends to anyone whom an employee or officeholder appointed by the employer might harass within the framework of labor relations. The municipality’s liability does not arise from direct involvement in the harassment, but from its failure to take the required preventive measures.

What Evidence Was Missing

The municipality did not prove that during the period of the harassment—from 2012 to 2015—it took reasonable preventive measures. Its witness was appointed as the official responsible for implementing the law only in 2021, and the documents presented related to a period beginning in 2020. No evidence was submitted of training conducted at the time, including training for the harasser, and the official responsible during the relevant period was not called to testify.

Compensation and Outcome of the Appeal

The municipality must pay the employee NIS 50,000 in compensation and NIS 7,500 in legal costs. The court also dismissed the former director’s appeal and upheld the NIS 600,000 in compensation imposed on him, plus NIS 25,000 in costs. The relationship was classified as ongoing sexual harassment in a “service in exchange for service” arrangement; even a possible initiative by the employee does not in itself negate the abuse of a relationship of authority.

What this means for you

The absence of a direct employment contract or formal subordination does not preclude a relationship of authority or organizational liability. An employer may be held liable for inadequately preventing harassment of employees at affiliated entities if the circumstances arose within the framework of labor relations. However, its liability for the omission is assessed separately from the liability of the direct harasser.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings