Retaliation and workplace bullying: causes of action, patterns and evidence

Shifts are reduced after a complaint. An employee is excluded from meetings for months. A manager humiliates someone before the team while describing it as professional criticism. These are different situations, and the everyday label “retaliation” is insufficient to identify the legal route.

Assessment starts with two questions: whether the harm is connected to an event or complaint protected by law, and whether there is a pattern of abusive conduct to assess as a whole. Sometimes the routes intersect; sometimes only one fits. The distinction affects evidence, employer duties and the action to consider.

Retaliation under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law

Section 3(b) defines retaliation as harm of any kind originating in sexual harassment or a complaint or claim about it. The issue is not merely the form of the harm but its source. Changes to shifts, professional exclusion or use of authority may therefore matter if the required connection exists.

Case law explains that a specific intention to retaliate need not be proved, but the harassment or complaint must be examined as a source of the harm. Close timing may support a connection; it does not replace assessment of knowledge, the explanation for the decision and the full picture. A decision presented as protective may also require assessment of its actual effects. Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law, Labor Appeal 35999-10-21, paragraphs 67–70 and 138–142

Retaliation does not necessarily require the repeated pattern considered in bullying cases. One adverse decision may justify assessment of a statutory cause of action under its conditions. Conversely, unpleasant treatment unconnected with harassment or a complaint does not become retaliation under this Law simply because an employee uses that description.

A different complaint: identify the relevant protection

Discrimination and equal pay

The Equal Employment Opportunities Law protects against adverse employment treatment because of a complaint or claim under that Law or the Equal Pay Law, or assistance to another employee. It also contains provisions concerning sexual harassment. These must be read within their scope, rather than treated as a promise that every post-complaint dispute will favour the complainant.

Section 6 addresses malicious complaints known to be false. Distinguish an unsuccessful or unproven complaint from one knowingly fabricated. The Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law has its own protection concerning complaints or assistance connected with its employment provisions. Equal Employment Opportunities Law, Sections 6–7, Disability Law, Section 10

Disclosing offences and breaches of integrity

The Protection of Employees (Exposure of Offences and Harm to Integrity or Proper Administration) Law provides protections under specified conditions. These include a good-faith complaint about a statutory breach in the framework described by the Law, and, for a public body, also harm to integrity or proper administration, submitted to an authority competent to receive, examine or investigate it.

The statutory remedies route distinguishes public bodies from non-public employers with more than 25 employees. There are also specific provisions on evidential burdens, deadlines and false complaints. Reporting any disagreement to a manager is therefore not automatically a protected complaint under this Law. Its exceptions also differ from those in the Equal Employment Opportunities Law. Protection of Employees Law, Sections 2–5

Workplace bullying: the cumulative picture

Case law has assessed workplace bullying within employment duties of good faith and fairness. The assessment is objective and cumulative, generally involving repeated conduct or several separate incidents. A subjective sense of unfairness is insufficient, but individual incidents should not be isolated from their context either.

In Hakamon, the National Labor Court emphasised the overall picture and the balance with legitimate management, considering the particular harm and circumstances. This is a case-law framework; compensation in one case does not establish a tariff for others. Labor Appeal 21934-02-21, paragraphs 39–40 and 53–61

Assessing the legal framework

Alongside the case-law assessment of a pattern of conduct, examine whether the facts meet the conditions of a particular protection: discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation or harm following a protected complaint. These are separate routes; an overall label does not replace examining the conditions, evidence and remedy for each. The discussion of workplace bullying here rests on the duties of good faith and fairness considered in Hakmon, and does not present a bill as a source of entitlement or compensation.

Professional criticism or abusive use of authority?

Employers and managers allocate tasks, supervise and assess performance. A disappointing decision, workload or professional disagreement does not alone establish bullying. Consider what occurred, how, how often, in which context and the substantive explanation.

Conversely, calling conduct “management” does not exempt its manner from assessment. Repeated public humiliation, withholding information needed for the job or professional isolation may contribute to a cumulative picture. These are examples for assessment, rather than a list where each item proves entitlement. Record the parties’ responses and explanations too, so the overall circumstances can be assessed.

Records that distinguish the causes of action

A chronology of events

Record the date, incident, person involved, witnesses and supporting document. If a complaint preceded it, note its subject, recipient and acknowledgement. Add when the adverse decision-maker knew about it, if known, and what changed afterwards.

For bullying, continuity and accumulation matter. For retaliation, connection to the protected event matters too. Facts need not be fitted into a label; preserve them so that more than one possible explanation can be assessed.

The actual change at work

Before-and-after schedules, meeting invitations, tasks, performance reviews and correspondence about responsibilities may demonstrate change. “I was excluded” becomes clearer when it identifies which information or role was removed, who decided and the effect.

Preserve material lawfully held without copying others’ confidential information or collecting documents from systems you are not authorised to access. A contemplated recording or use of medical information requires separate assessment of permission, privacy and intended use. Proving harm does not permit infringement of other rights.

Employer responsibility and responding during employment

Where harm continues, the immediate objective may be to stop it while preserving the possibility of working. A focused approach to an appropriate person can describe incidents, request examination and explain interim needs. The regulatory mechanism applies to sexual harassment and retaliation; it cannot automatically be transferred to every bullying complaint, although a binding workplace procedure or applicable arrangement should be assessed.

Employer liability depends on the legal route, knowledge and required response. There is no automatic liability for every disagreement between colleagues, nor an assumption that ignoring an approach ends responsibility. If the recipient is involved in the events, consider an alternative contact and the appropriate authority.

A request to remedy harm, assistance with an approach, a claim or interim relief may be considered according to the case. Identify an imminent decision or continuing harm without assuming that an approach or postponement request suspends a deadline.

Resignation, termination and relief

Bullying or retaliation may also raise a question of material deterioration or circumstances in which continued employment cannot reasonably be required, but eligibility for severance pay following resignation needs a separate assessment. Using the label “bullying” does not satisfy that route’s requirements.

Before resigning or signing a termination arrangement, consider evidence, the connection with departure and steps required by law. deterioration and resignation addresses this in detail; this is not a general recommendation to stay or leave.

A cause of action and relief may remain open to assessment after employment ends. Jurisdiction, limitation, orders and compensation depend on the route. Establishing workplace bullying does not automatically lead to reinstatement or a particular compensation award. Do not equate the claim deadline with a period relevant to shifting an evidential burden or assume negotiations preserve either.

An approach starting with the facts and your needs

Prepare a short account of the sequence, any earlier complaint and your most pressing need before approaching Menahemov Shpigel & Co. Sensitive documents should be provided through an agreed channel after suitability and conflict checks. You need not identify the cause of action yourself before asking for its assessment.

See the service overview and complaints and inquiries concerning sexual harassment.