The municipality of Petah Tikva started a project for police patrol service via a security company. The service was to operate 24/7 via foot-patrol and motorized patrol.
Noa was invited to an interview and accepted to this position along with 16 others. She was the only female in the group. Noa was slotted in to do only the foot patrol on all her watches. She asked the person in charge of scheduling the shifts to put her on some motor-patrols as well, but was turned down, according to Noa “because people don’t want to see a woman driving a jeep…”
She was requested to pass an internal driving test to show she is capable of “navigating in the area” before she would even be considered for a motorized patrol, even though none of the other employees were required to do so.
Noa submitted a formal complaint to the labor court against her employer demanding 100,000 sh in damages pertaining to non-compliance with the equal opportunity in employment law, loss of income and tarnishing her good name and aggravation.
The labor court issued the following verdict:
The equal opportunity in employment law clearly states in section 2a that it is forbidden to discriminate due to sex, among other things, in accepting a candidate for employment, in training a candidate, in firing an employee, etc.
The law passes over the responsibility to the employer to prove their was no foul play and discrimination in his decision.
The court found that Noa wasn’t scheduled for motorized patrols simply because she is a woman. Also the fact that she was required to take extra tests as opposed to the men. Noa also submitted taped conversations between herself and her employer to back her claims. The court ruled that this is indeed invalid discrimination and although no monetary damage was proved, the court still believed that this type of behavior needs to be curbed harshly and therefore fined the employer 55,000 shekels.
