Does the New Law Against Too-Thin Models Violate the Basic Law?

The JPost had an article stating that: 

Starting on Tuesday, female and male models who have a body mass index (BMI) of less than 18.5 may not be shown in the media or on Israeli websites or go down the catwalk at fashion shows...

The law, also sponsored by Likud-Beytenu MK Danny Danon and believed to be the first of its kind in the world, does make violations a criminal offense bearing a fine. But violators can be sued in court by interested citizens, including families whose relatives have suffered or died due to eating disorders encouraged by images of overly thin models.While the media that publish or present illegal images are not liable, they will get a bad image for doing so; the company that produced the ad, ran the fashion show or used the overly skinny presenter can be taken to court.

In addition, any advertisement made to look with Photoshop or other graphics programs as if the model has a BMI under 18.5 has to be labeled with the warning that the image was distorted. The warning must be clear and prominent, covering at least 7 percent of the ad space.

Even the Wall Street Journal has picked up the story.

I wonder, however, whether this law is against the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation which states that: Every Israel national or resident has the right to engage in any occupation, profession or trade. What if there is a model who naturally has a BMI of less than 18.5? Is she going to be forced to give up her career?

The Basic Law does have two provisions which might protect the law from being overturned:

Section 4: There shall be no violation of freedom of occupation except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required, or by regulation enacted by virtue of express authorization in such law.

Section 8: A provision of a law that violates freedom of occupation shall be of effect, even though not in accordance with section 4, if it has been included in a law passed by a majority of the members of the Knesset, which expressly states that it shall be of effect, notwithstanding the provisions of this Basic Law; such law shall expire four years from its commencement unless a shorter duration has been stated therein.

We'll have to wait and see if this law is challenged in court.

Municipality Playing Hardball with Nursery School Teachers

Recently, a friend of mine asked me about a 3-year non-compete clause his nursery teacher wife was asked by the city of Jerusalem to sign.

Last year, the Knesset passed a new law providing for free nursery school education for 3 and 4 year olds (see article here.)  In order to immediately implement this law, the city asked local nursery teachers who already had private classes in their apartments if they wanted to fill the positions available for the city nurseries. Many of these women already had established reputations in their neighborhoods. Now, they could go to work for the city and bring their clientele with them.

My friend's wife had been running her own nursery program for a few years and applied for a position and was accepted. She recruited children for the class but had not yet signed a contract with the city. When she received the contract, she was surprised to see that it had a 3-year non-compete clause that looked something like this:

All Your Work is Belong to Us (for Compensation?)

An article in Haaretz today reports on a recent Supreme Court decision suggesting that the inventor listed on a patent application may be entitled to compensation for a service invention even where he signed an agreement assigning the invention to his employer and waiving his rights to compensation. A service invention, described in Section 132 of the Patent Law, is an invention created during the employees' term of service for the employer and as part of his work which, unless agreed otherwise, belongs to the employer. It is similar to a work for hire in the US copyright context.

I think the article makes two errors (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Corporate Espionage: Spying on Your Own Employees

In a recent case, (Iskandar Salman v. Ihab Alimi) the Labor Court ruled that an accountant, who discovered that he was being filmed in his office by his employer and without his knowledge for the last 7 years, was, despite his resignation, entitled to severance pay.

The plaintiff claimed that after 11 years of working for the defendant, the last 7 of which occurred under surveillance, he no longer trusted his employer and the fact that his employer surreptitiously filmed him at work constituted a deterioration of the workplace environment such that his resignation should be considered the equivalent of a dismissal and he should thus be entitled to severance pay in respect of the years of service to the employer. The Severance Pay Law- 1963 states that "Where an employee resigns by reasons of an appreciable deterioration of his conditions of employment, or in view of other matters of labor relations affecting him and because of which he cannot be expected to continue in his employment, the resignation shall, for the purposes of this Law, be deemed to be dismissal."

The plaintiff also sued for emotional distress caused by the invasion of privacy. (In case you are curious, the plaintiff learned of the existence of the camera after the employer returned from his vacation, viewed tapes of the other employees not performing their assigned tasks properly- whatever that means- and called them into his office to reprimand them. It was then that the secret filming was revealed. The employer claimed this was the first time he had ever reviewed the tapes.)

Prime Minister Reports on President's Travels

Today's post is just a little quirky piece of Israeli law.

I recently saw a public notice in Reshumot, the official gazette for the publication of records and laws in Israel, that made me do a double take. It is a notice "signed" by the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, notifying the public that the President, Shimon Peres, left the country for 3 days. That's all it says.

Apparently, according to the Basic Law: The President, the Prime Minister must notify us of the President's travels outside the country:

24.(b) The Prime Minister shall publish a notice in Reshumot as to the President's leaving the territory of the State and as to his return.

This is the notice in Hebrew:

הודעה על יציאת נשיא המדינה את גבולות המדינה ועל שובו

לפי חוק–יסוד: נשיא המדינה

בהתאם לסעיף 24(ב) לחוק–יסוד: נשיא המדינה , אני מודיע על יציאת נשיא המדינה את גבולות המדינה ביום ב' באלול התשע"א (1 בספטמבר 2011) ועל שובו ביום ה' באלול התשע"א (4 בספטמבר 2011).

י"ב באלול התשע"א (11 בספטמבר 2011) (חמ 3—1300)

בנימין נתניהו

ראש הממשלה

Now this notice was published on September 26, 2011 even though the President had already returned by September 4th. I guess we just need to be apprised of the President's travels but not for the purposes of knowing his itinerary.

I checked the President's website but didn't see any press release for those dates, so maybe it was a pleasure trip. If you live in another country and met with the President between September 1st and 4th, please let me know.