The Rights of People with Disabilities Clinic prevented the dismissal of a person on the autistic spectrum. The client, a high-functioning autistic person about whom there were no complaints throughout his period of work and who, according to all indicators worked satisfactorily, received notice that he would be fired as part of the overall layoff of about 7% of the workforce. The Clinic informed the employer that — based on the legal standing of affirmative action in the case of a person with a disability, even when there are staff layoffs, and that a disabled worker with the necessary qualifications cannot be included in the 7% — it intended to represent the client at a pre-dismissal hearing. The employer subsequently rescinded the dismissal notice and the hearing was canceled.
In January 2020, the National Labor Court accepted the request of the Bizchut organization, represented by the Rights of People with Disabilities Clinic, to join as an amicus curiae in legal case regarding employee-employer relation in sheltered workshops. Currently, there are no employer-employee regulations in sheltered establishments where people with disabilities are employed, depriving them of benefits and rights usually afforded to employees, despite some sheltered establishments being regular workplaces that don’t include any rehabilitative function. To the extent that a ruling is given that adopts our claims, it may have significant far-reaching implications for tens of thousands of people with disabilities employed in sheltered establishments.
Following a complaint by the Rights of People with Disabilities Clinic, the Disability Authority of the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, and Social Services announced the removal of an age limit for blind people in sheltered workshops after the first lockdown. The Clinic turned to the Disability Authority after handling several cases in which sheltered workshops employing blind people ruled that employed persons over the age of 55 were not eligible to return to their workplace. In its appeal, the Clinic warned that a similar regulation regarding over the age of 67 employees in the general labor market had been revoked by the High Court and argued that despite the desire to protect this population, it was discriminatory since its basis was age as opposed to comprising part of an at-risk population, and because it constituted a disproportionate denial of freedom. Following the appeal, the Authority announced that the age limit would be removed and replaced by the nationwide ‘purple badge’ health and safety regulations.