Service page: Employment lawyer: dismissals, wages and severance pay.
You received a dismissal letter claiming you were caught “surfing the internet” during working hours, and you did not know you were being monitored. Or someone in the company saw your private messages. Or you were told that a GPS system recorded that you were somewhere unrelated to work. What can you do about this legally?
What is an “invasion of privacy” under the Protection of Privacy Law?
The Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 defines a list of acts that are considered an invasion of privacy, among them: photographing a person while they are in the private domain, eavesdropping prohibited by law, copying the content of a letter or electronic message not intended for publication, or using its content without permission, and using information about a person’s private affairs other than for the purpose for which it was given (section 2). In a work environment, familiar cases are: opening employees’ personal emails, monitoring private WhatsApp, and cameras in places where there is a justified expectation of privacy.
Will evidence collected through illegal monitoring be accepted by the Labor Court?
Section 32 of the Protection of Privacy Law provides that material obtained through an invasion of privacy may not be used as evidence in court without the consent of the injured person, unless the court allowed it for reasons to be recorded, or the person who invaded privacy has a defense under the Law. In other words, the starting point is inadmissibility, and the Labor Court uses its discretion on whether to depart from it. In practice, an employer who built the justification for a dismissal on illegal monitoring may find that the court holds that the dismissal was unlawful and made without good faith, even if the breach attributed to the employee was proven. So it is worth an employee examining how the evidence was collected too, not only what it shows.
Are you an employer who wants to check what the law requires of you?I will get back to you within one business day.
Calls and replies in English or Hebrew
What happens after you write to me
- You write what happened and with whom. No documents.
- I get back to you within one business day for a short call of a few minutes.
- If it is a matter I handle: after the call you will receive, in writing, what will be done and what the next step is. Work starts only after you approve.
At the end of the call you will know one of three things: it is a matter I handle, and what the next step is; you can manage without a lawyer, and which guide fits; or it is outside my field, and where to turn.
What can you sue for when the monitoring was illegal?
Three main causes of action: a claim under the Protection of Privacy Law. An invasion of privacy is a civil wrong (tort), and section 29A of the Law allows compensation without proof of damage to be awarded. The amount stated in the Law is NIS 50,000, and section 29A(d) links it to the index, so the cap in force in the update of 16 October 2026 is NIS 72,221.22, and double that amount, NIS 144,442.44, when the invasion was committed with intent to harm. In addition, if the monitoring led to dismissal: a claim for severance pay and for compensation for unlawful dismissal. If the monitoring caused real damage, such as harm to reputation or proven mental suffering: an ordinary tort claim for the damage. All three causes of action can be brought together.
What happens when monitoring data leaked from the company?
An employer that collects tracking data on employees must keep it securely. If the data leaked, whether through a break-in to the servers or through another employee who got unauthorized access, the employer is exposed to a tort claim. The Protection of Privacy Law and the Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security), 5777-2017 impose a duty of security on every controller of a database and on every holder of one. A breach of this duty is a tort under the Torts Ordinance [New Version] (section 31B of the Law), even when the leak itself was carried out by a third party, if the security failure made it possible.
What do you do in practice when you find out you are being secretly monitored?
Three first steps: document everything you know about the monitoring (dates, what you were told, whether there was advance notice). Send the employer a formal letter and ask for information: what is monitored, for what purpose, and on the basis of what authorization. Get legal advice before you sign a “final settlement” document: such a signature can close off a future claim.
Can I demand to see the information my employer collected about me?
Usually, yes. Tracking data that the employer keeps by digital means is a “database” (section 3 of the Protection of Privacy Law), and every person has a right to inspect the personal information about them held in the database (section 13). The request is made in writing and signed. Under the Protection of Privacy Regulations (Conditions for Inspection of Information and Procedure for Appeal against a Refusal of a Request for Inspection), 5741-1981 (תקנות הגנת הפרטיות (תנאים לעיון במידע וסדרי הדין בערעור על סירוב לבקשת עיון), התשמ״א-1981), inspection must be allowed within 30 days of receiving the request (regulation 2), and a refusal must be notified within 21 days, and no answer within that period counts as a refusal (regulation 5). Since Amendment No. 13, the court may award exemplary damages of up to NIS 10,000 for failure to allow inspection as required (section 15A(a)(3)).
What government oversight is there over monitoring at work?
The Privacy Protection Authority is empowered to examine complaints and to impose monetary sanctions on companies that breach the Protection of Privacy Law. Filing a complaint with the Authority involves no payment and does not require a parallel lawsuit. It is a first tool worth considering, especially when the monitoring continues: when the conditions in the Law are met, the head of the Authority is empowered to order the breach to stop (section 23Y of the Law).
Sources
- Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981
- Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security), 5777-2017
- Protecting employees’ privacy in the workplace — Kol Zchut
The links lead to the original legislation (in Hebrew). The binding text is the one published in Sefer HaHukim (the official gazette of statutes).
Has something similar happened to you?You can write to me what happened and with whom, without documents.
Calls and replies in English or Hebrew
Checklist
- Practical tip: when representing an employee who was dismissed on the basis of monitoring findings, first check whether advance notice of the monitoring was given and in what way. Notice buried in clause 47 of an employment contract that the employee probably did not read closely is unlikely to be considered informed consent by the court.
- Common mistake: focusing only on the dismissal and neglecting the invasion of privacy. If the data that led to the dismissal was collected through an invasion of privacy, that is a civil wrong in its own right (section 4 of the Protection of Privacy Law).
- Tactical point: an invasion of privacy under the Protection of Privacy Law gives compensation without proof of damage. In claims where the actual damage is hard to prove, bring the privacy cause of action as the main anchor.
Monitoring with cameras in the workplace
Installing cameras in the workplace is allowed, but subject to cumulative conditions developed in the guidelines of the Privacy Protection Authority: written advance notice to employees of the location of the cameras, the purpose of installing them and the use that will be made of the footage; a legitimate purpose (protecting property, employee safety, preventing embezzlement); no less intrusive alternative; and limiting access to the footage to authorized persons only. Toilets and changing rooms may not be filmed, and prayer and rest areas are also considered sensitive and require especially strong justification. A hidden camera, of which employees were not notified in advance, is contrary to these principles.
GPS tracking and the location of employees’ vehicles
Tracking employees’ location by GPS or location apps is subject to similar principles. Under the purpose limitation principle (section 2(9) of the Protection of Privacy Law), consent for one purpose (for example, an anti-theft system) does not allow the information to be used for another purpose, such as ongoing tracking of the employee’s location. Collecting the information must be clearly linked to a need of the job, limited to actual working hours, and stop when the vehicle is used for private purposes, so as to avoid collecting sensitive information about family members, health or personal habits. Where a less intrusive alternative exists (such as limiting the tracking to a defined work area), the employer must prefer it over continuous tracking.