The legal question is whether the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice should intervene in the ruling of the Great Rabbinical Court or not. The husband (“respondent 3”) owned an apartment and had no intention of sharing the ownership with the petitioner in a divorce case, which was first submitted to the Regional Rabbinical Court.
The aunt of three children applied to a Moslem Religious Court to be appointed as their guardian. The children’s mother argued that she was entitled to the guardianship under the Women’s Equal Rights Law. The mother, believing that the religious judge (the Kadi) would apply religious law and disregard the Women’s Equal Rights Law, applied for an order staying or setting aside the proceedings of the religious court. The court held that the issue was not ripe for review, as there was no indication that the Kadi would disregard civil law and rely only upon religious law.
The petitioner challenged a pension rule requiring women to retire at age 60 while requiring men to retire at age 65. The court held that the rule was discriminatory, because it treated women differently from men where there was no relevant difference between men and women such that the rule served a legitimate purpose. In addition, the fact that the Male and Female Workers (Equal Retirement Age) Law, which corrected the difference, came into force subsequent to the judgment of the lower court did not preclude a showing of discrimination prior to the law coming into effect.
This law contains provisions on the prohibition of night work (with exceptions) as well as absences from work, protection from dismissal during maternity leave, registration of female workers, and labor inspection. The penalty for violating the law is a fine not to exceed 9600 Shekalim for every female worker against whom a violation is committed or imprisonment for a term of one month, or both. The law also includes the Amendment from No.5 to No.50 since 1976 until 2013.
This law contains provisions on the prohibition of night work (with exceptions) as well as absences from work, protection from dismissal during maternity leave, registration of female workers, and labor inspection. The penalty for violating the law is a fine not to exceed 9600 Shekalim for every female worker against whom a violation is committed or imprisonment for a term of one month, or both. The law also includes the Amendment from No.5 to No.50 since 1976 until 2013.
Three men were appointed to the boards of directors of Government corporations when neither board was comprised of any women members at the time of appointments. The court found each appointment unlawful under s. 18A of the Government Corporations Law (Amendment No. 6) (Appointments), which required ministers to appoint, “in so far as it is possible in the circumstances of the case, directors of the sex that is not properly represented at that time on the board of directors of the corporation.” As a result, the court set aside each of the three appointments without prejudice.
This law is intended to promote equality and to prevent discrimination between the sexes in all matters of pay or of any other remuneration in connection with employment. It vests the Labor Court with jurisdiction to hear actions under this law; it also defines equal pay and equal work The law repeals the Male and Female Workers Equal Pay Act of 1964.
The court held that loss of earnings damages for minor children should be based upon the national average wage. Factors that might warrant deviation from this presumption include the child’s age, when there is a real chance the child would have worked in another country, and other concrete characteristics of the injured child. Here, because the child in question was injured when she was only five months old, assumptions regarding her future were inappropriate.
The petitioner requested that the army (“the respondent”）assign her to the air force for training as a pilot. The respondent argued that the huge investment involved in training a pilot was not justified for women since the service time of women was shorter than men; the time of pregnancy or childbirth would also disrupt the daily air force training. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to prove that women joining aviation would seriously harm national security, which was against common sense and experience.
The parties, a married couple, underwent in-vitro fertilization in Israel for purposes of implanting the fertilized ova in a surrogate mother in the United States. Before the ova could be implanted in a surrogate mother, however, the husband left the wife. The wife applied to the Israeli hospital for release of the fertilized ova, intending to move forward with the surrogacy plan in the United States. The husband opposed the release of the ova.
