Case Number

HCJ 4541/94

Date Decided

11-8-1995

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: The petitioner asked the army to assign her to the air force for training as a pilot. The army refused, since it was established policy not to train women as pilots. The army’s reasoning was based on the length of service: by law, men are obliged to serve until the age of 54, whereas women are only obliged to serve until the age of 38, and they are exempt if they are pregnant or have children. Consequently, the army argued, the huge investment involved in training a pilot could not be justified for women, and planning for the deployment of pilots in the air force units would be complicated by the integration of women pilots who could be expected to be absent for significant periods of time because of pregnancy and childbirth.

Held: The majority held that the budgetary and planning considerations did not justify a general policy of rejecting all women from aviation courses. The minority held that intervention of the High Court of Justice was not justified in view of these considerations.

Petition granted by majority decision (Justices E. Mazza, T. Strasberg-Cohen, D. Dorner), Justices Y. Kedmi, Ts. E. Tal dissenting.

Keywords

Administrative Law -- Discretion, Army -- Assignments and exemptions from service, Constitutional Law -- Affirmative Action, Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Expression

Download

Share

COinS