Israel: A Labour & Employment Overview

Israeli labour law continued to evolve throughout 2025, adapting to both emerging and ongoing challenges in the local market and the broader employment landscape. The year’s developments were marked by increased regulatory involvement in safeguarding employees’ rights, particularly in the area of workplace privacy, alongside a stronger legal and judicial emphasis on fair employment conditions and equal opportunity.

The labour courts have broadened their rulings on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), highlighting the integration of employees with disabilities, the advancement of gender equality and the promotion of a fair and respectful work environment for all employees. At the same time, the legal system has addressed new issues arising from the implementation of workplace technologies, striving to maintain employees’ fundamental rights while balancing employers’ operational needs.

Expanding Protection of Employees’ Workplace Privacy

On 5 August 2024, the Knesset approved Amendment No 13 to the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 (the “Amendment”). This Amendment introduces significant changes to Israeli privacy legislation, aiming to address current challenges, strengthen enforcement capabilities (including the imposition of fines), and align Israeli law with leading international privacy standards, particularly the European GDPR.

The Amendment came into effect in August 2025 and has had a substantial impact on employment practices, requiring employers to revise how they manage and safeguard employees’ personal information.

One of the most notable changes is the expansion of employers’ duty to inform and disclose. Previously, a privacy notice was required to specify whether providing information was mandatory or voluntary, the purpose for which the information would be used and the recipient of such information. Under the Amendment, the notice must now also include the consequences of refusing to provide the requested information; details of the database controller and how they can be contacted; as well as the rights of the data subject to review and correct their information in accordance with the law.

These changes enhance transparency and strengthen employees’ rights, reflecting a broader legal trend toward ensuring optimal protection of personal data in the workplace.

In addition to the legislative changes, on 26 March 2025, the National Labour Court issued a landmark ruling in the matter of D Mark Friedman Ltd. v Elkaner, addressing the use of cameras in the workplace. The court held that installing of cameras does not in itself constitute a significant deterioration in employment terms that would entitle an employee to resign and be considered dismissed. However, any use of cameras must be assessed through a multi-stage test that includes:

• the legitimacy of the privacy infringement and the existence of a proper purpose;
• the extent of the privacy infringement caused by the camera placement; and
• the balance between the infringement and the degree of employee consent.

The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a clear policy on camera installation and use, as well as the employers' obligation to fully inform employees about any impact on their privacy rights.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Recent precedent-setting rulings have reinforced equality and fairness in the workplace, increasing employers’ obligations and, in some cases, requiring proactive measures to implement DEI principles and protect workers’ rights. Below is an overview of several key decisions.

Weight-based discrimination

On 21 February 2024, the National Labour Court issued a ruling in the matter of Moshe Liplas v The Israel Football Association, concerning a soccer referee in the National League (second tier) who was dismissed partly due to his weight, after he was told by his supervisors that his “appearance is not suitable for television”.

The court acknowledged studies demonstrating weight-based discrimination but noted that the legislature has not yet regulated this issue; therefore, weight is not listed as a prohibited ground under Section 2(a) of the Equal Opportunities in Employment Law, 5748-1988.

However, the court held that considering weight as a criterion constituted an “extraneous consideration”, entitling the employee to compensation for breach of the duty of good faith. This ruling underscores that even absent explicit legal regulation, employers must avoid unjustified discrimination and base decisions solely on objective factors.

Gender-based discrimination in retirement

On 21 June 2025, the National Labour Court ruled in the matter of Rochelmer v Shaare Zedek Medical Center, addressing a female doctor’s request to continue working beyond the mandatory retirement age of 67. While male doctors were allowed to work well past this age, Dr Rochelmer was permitted only a short extension. The court held that the initial burden of proving discrimination, placed on the employee, is relatively light, and shifts to the employer once a pattern of bias is established. Importantly, the court emphasised that intent to discriminate is not required; the assessment is based on the objective outcome of the employer’s decision.

The judgment reaffirmed that employers have a managerial prerogative to set criteria for post-retirement age employment, but such criteria cannot serve as a pretext for improper discrimination. Employers must implement a transparent and consistent process, allowing employees to address relevant considerations and reviewing all prior approvals to ensure decisions are free from discrimination, including gender-based bias.

This ruling underscores the importance of clear, equitable policies that enable fair and balanced decision-making while safeguarding employee rights. It serves as a critical reminder that requests to continue working beyond the mandatory retirement age must be evaluated professionally, objectively and without selectively or inconsistent treatment.

Gender wage gap class action

In August 2020, the Equal Pay for Male and Female Employees Law, 5756-1996, was amended to require many employers to publish information and report data on wage gaps between men and women in the workplace.

Based on this law, and in parallel with its amendment, in 2020, a female hospital support worker filed a motion to certify a class action (Class Action of Mary Nicole Meir v Clalit Health Services), alleging that the Clalit Health Fund discriminated against hundreds of women employed as support workers compared to male hospital orderlies, who she claimed earned more for performing the same work.

In 2023, the Regional Labour Court approved the case as a class action, and an appeal to the National Labour Court was rejected. However, on 15 October 2025, the Regional Labour Court ruled on the merits of the claim. After examining the characteristics of the two roles, the court determined they were not “jobs of equal value” and therefore found no basis for gender-based discrimination. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Despite this outcome, the case reflects a growing trend. Gender wage gaps remain a central issue in legal discourse and employers must stay vigilant in meeting transparency and reporting obligations regarding pay equity.

Disability-based discrimination

On 4 August 2025, the National Labour Court ruled in the matter of Muhammad Mustafara v Rav Bariach (08) Industries Ltd., establishing key principles on accommodating employees with disabilities.

The employee in question was dismissed after being medically restricted to part-time work, with the employer claiming this imposed an “excessive burden”, and therefore it could not locate a suitable position for him.

The court held that the employer bears the burden of proving the dismissal was unrelated to the disability and emphasised that intent is irrelevant; rather, the outcome matters. Accordingly, following the finding that the employer had made no effort to accommodate him, the employee received the full compensation claimed.

The ruling outlines key obligations for employers to ensure the integration of employees with disabilities. These include making genuine efforts to recruit for suitable positions, adjusting work schedules and hours, exploring alternative roles, seeking assistance from experts in disability integration, and actively involving the employee in identifying and implementing necessary accommodations.

Summary

Developments in 2025 highlight how Israel’s labour law framework continues to introduce innovative legal tools, broaden the interpretation of workers' rights, and respond swiftly to the evolving challenges of a dynamic employment landscape. At the same time, the system maintains stability while strengthening the protection and empowerment of employees across the market. This year’s trends and case law underscore the need for employers to adapt their policies and procedures to changing realities, while fully complying with legal requirements and safeguarding employee rights.