Judge urges PM's wife, housekeeper to reach compromise

Housekeeper suing Sara Netanyahu criticized over discrepancies in lawsuit, including miscalculations in required wages, vacation days. Judges says, 'If case involved regular people, it would have ended outside courtroom'

Ahiya Raved|Published: 05.30.10 , 15:26

Housekeeper's lawsuit against Sara Netanyahu: With the start of the trial on Sunday, the Haifa District Labor Court recommended both sides reach a compromise or engage in mediation, and pointed to a number of "clauses that require clarification" in the housekeeper's suit.

The judge revealed a number of alleged errors in the calculation of the wages and vacation days the housekeeper, Lillian Peretz, was owed. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were absent from the session.

According to the lawsuit filed by Peretz, the prime minister's wife abused her, paid her less than minimum wage, did not pay her social benefits, forced her to work on Shabbat, and forced her to address her as "Mrs. Sara Netanyahu".

Netanyahu dismissed the allegations as "slander and fabrications" and in her defense statement said Peretz's suit was full of "empty accusations". The prime minister's wife cited warm and loving things Peretz had said about her, and blamed her accountant for the errors in Peretz's wages.

At the start of the trial, Labor Court Justice Rami Cohen asked that the legal status of the first defendant, a company by the name of B.S. Netanyahu, which issued Peretz's pay slips, be clarified. He said the plaintiffs failed to determine that such a legal entity even exists.

The judge noted that the entity in question could be a joint bank account that belongs to the family – contrary to the plaintiff's claims – meaning it should not have been involved in the lawsuit.

Cohen went on to try to convince the parties to reach a compromise outside of court, and pointed out a line of discrepancies regarding the scope of Peretz's job at the Netanyahu household, the calculation of her vacation days, and the calculation of her owed salary.

For example, the judge noted that Peretz did not work full weeks at the Netanyahu household, meaning her vacation days should not be calculated as they would be for a full-time job. He added that the minimum wage she was paid was calculated according to work hours, and not on a daily or weekly basis.

Three weeks to compromise

The judge mainly addressed the content of the lawsuit, but towards the end of the hearing insinuated to the defense attorneys that there are also a number of indisputable clauses, which warrant compensation.

At one point the judge commented on the identity of the parties involved in the affair and said, "If it was regular people, the case would have ended outside of the courtroom."

The judge ultimately ruled, with both parties' consent, that they are to report to the court within three weeks with their decision on whether to reach a compromise, engage in mediation, or conduct a full trial.

At the end of the hearing, Netanyahu's attorney, David Shomron, could not conceal his satisfaction: "The court has expressed its stance and many reservations regarding the lawsuit, and has sent the parties to try to work things out the way they should have been worked out in the first place – outside of the courts. Anyone with eyes could have seen where the judge's criticism was directed."

Attorney Assaf Sharaf, who represents Peretz, said the judge was not criticizing the lawsuit, but merely "asking to clarify the facts". He said that despite the judge's suggestion that the parties reach a compromise outside the courtroom, he plans to go forward wit the trial. "The most important part of this trial will be the testimony stage. We will hear what Lillian Peretz and Sara Netanyahu have to say on the witness stand," the lawyer said.