Shabbat Parashat Tzav 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Back Pay for a Junior Lawyer – part II

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) worked for the defendant’s (=def) law firm, first as an intern and then as a lawyer, from 2014-2020, for a very low salary. After leave due to the pandemic, pl’s employment ceased. Pl is suing for being paid less than the minimum wage for full-time work, for insufficient and delayed pension and other entitlements, and for an improper firing. Def counters that pl was a part-time worker and thus was paid sufficiently. Def also denies firing pl. Rather, pl refused to take on new cases, to which def commented that those who do not work cannot stay on, prompting pl to leave.

Ruling: [Last time we saw the compromise ruling crediting pl with working 28 hours a week, which enable the determination of minimum wages and other benefits.]

Although def did not say, “You are fired,” several things he said, at the time and since, indicate that he indeed fired pl. Among them, was that def lamented what he told pl. Def also said that he would give pl a month’s salary. These make sense only if def was firing him. If def’s statements were not meant to be final, he could have contacted pl and worked things out over the next period. Since Halacha recognizes the law that there is a responsibility to compensate financially for firing, def must do so.

Pl demanded that def give him significant bonuses for specific cases in which he succeeded nicely, as is customary and as def promised. Pl admitted that he was never promised a specific amount, and the bonuses were not part of the salary he was promised, but something he had a feeling he would receive. Therefore, any words of planning to give bonuses, which were also never proved, express only the intention to “give a present,” which is not binding for a large present (Bava Metzia 49a). The bonuses that were given are enough to fulfill the moral obligation.

Pl presented many small claims, many based on labor laws, which we will survey briefly. The law requires that an employer give a worker a written description of the job and the compensation. Pl asked for 15,000 NIS for the failure to do so. While def claimed that pl knew what the conditions were, this adjudication proves how important such a document would have been. This is one of the elements that serve as the basis of a general obligation beit din levied.

Def did not give salary stubs as required. While this did not cause much damage, this is part of the general obligation. Def did not give pl a letter of the ending of employment, up to the time of this ruling’s writing. This apparently did not cause damage, but this too is included. Pl also deserves compensation for not having a hearing before firing. Some other similar claims were rejected. For all of these infractions, def must pay pl 14,000 NIS.

Pl claims that it is clear from some of the checks received that there were partially unpaid salaries. However, pl admits that at times he was paid partially in cash and he had previously said that he had been paid his salaries. Therefore, this late claim is rejected.    

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend