Labor Court Cancels Dismissal of Carrefour Employee with Medical Restrictions
A 63-year-old Carrefour employee battling lung cancer successfully contested his dismissal after the Labor Court ruled that the supermarket chain failed to prove its reduction-in-force claims and likely discriminated against him.
A 63-year-old employee, who worked for over three decades at supermarket chains including Blue Square, Mega, and now Carrefour, has successfully challenged his dismissal in the Labor Court. The employee, who serves as a produce clerk and formerly as a department manager, has been battling lung cancer, underwent two surgeries, and was restricted by an occupational physician to a six-hour workday.
Following corporate restructuring announcements, the employee was first transferred from his managerial position at the Emek Brakha branch in Tel Aviv to a clerk position at the Ramot Tzahala branch, and was subsequently dismissed in August. Represented by counsel, he argued that the termination was a discriminatory measure driven by his age and health condition rather than professional shortcomings, pointing out that the company continued to publish job openings while failing to substantiate its claimed reduction-in-force plan.
The company defended its actions, asserting that the dismissal was part of a legitimate, broad organizational efficiency program that affected approximately 70 employees in July. Management maintained that seniority and medical limitations do not grant immunity from layoffs, that the hearings were conducted fairly, and that no alternative positions matching his medical restrictions were available.
However, the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court, presided over by Judge Tomer Silora alongside public representatives Gad Gafni and Yael Sharon, ruled in favor of the employee in an interim decision. The court criticized the employer for failing to provide any documentation, such as payroll reports or workforce data, to substantiate its claims of mass layoffs.
The court concluded that there are strong indications the employee was unlawfully discriminated against due to his disability, noting that his six-hour work limitation appeared to be the decisive factor in his selection for termination. Consequently, the court canceled the dismissal letter and ordered that the employee continue working at the chain until a final verdict is reached in the main proceeding.
