Case Number
HCJ 10076/02 , HCJ 7840/03 , HCJ 9613/03
Date Decided
12-12-2006
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The respondents introduced a compulsory retirement age of 55 for all of their employees. The petitioners challenged this policy on the grounds that it discriminated between them and civil servants in other parts of the civil service, where the customary retirement age was 65.
Held: Although the law gave the respondents the possibility of retiring its employees at the age of 55, the introduction of a compulsory retirement policy at the lowest age allowed by the law resulted in discrimination in relation to the other parts of the civil service. This consideration had not been taken into account by the respondents, and the respondents were unable to show why their policy was required by the character and nature of the work in their organizations.
Petitions granted.
Keywords
Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Expression, Labor -- Discrimination
