In recent weeks, two noteworthy decisions have been handed down—one in the United States and the other in Israel—illustrating both how the issue of preventing sexual harassment in the workplace continues to evolve, and how the existence of an employment relationship may be critical, though it is not the end of the story.
The New York Court’s Decision in Blake Lively’s Lawsuit
On April 2, 2026, the U.S. federal court in New York issued a decision in actress Blake Lively’s lawsuit against Wayfarer Studios, Justin Baldoni, and additional defendants, in connection with events that allegedly occurred during the filming and promotion of It Ends With Us. Lively alleged, among other things, that a hostile work environment had been created for her during filming, and that Baldoni and Heath engaged in sexually inappropriate and intrusive conduct toward her. She claimed, among other things, that there were inappropriate sexually charged conversations, comments about her appearance and body, intimate physical contact that she alleges had not been agreed in advance, invasion of privacy while she was changing in her trailer, and pressure to film a scene involving bodily exposure that had not been agreed beforehand. In addition, Lively alleged that after she complained, a campaign of retaliation and reputational harm was carried out against her.
It is important to understand the U.S. legal framework. In the United States, sexual harassment in the workplace is treated as part of the prohibition against sex discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the principal legal sources in this area, and it prohibits discrimination in employment, including sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it. However, its application is limited to “employees” and to circumstances involving an employment relationship. That was precisely the core of the ruling in Lively’s case. The court held that Lively was not an “employee” of either the production company or the director, but rather an independent contractor: she was engaged through a loan-out company, was paid on a project basis, did not receive the benefits of a salaried employee, enjoyed extensive approval and influence rights over the script and other creative aspects, and was in fact involved in material production decisions. Against that background, the court dismissed her sexual harassment and retaliation claims at the threshold, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship.
That said, the court did not rule that no sexual harassment had occurred. Her other claims will still proceed, and it remains possible that she may still pursue claims in another forum.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court’s Decision
On April 12, 2026, the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court ruled in Labor Case No. 69438-06-21, a matter that likewise addressed the framework of the employment relationship in the context of sexual harassment and employer liability. The judgment concerned a claim filed by an employee who worked in a closed psychiatric ward at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, and who, while at work, was sexually harassed by a patient who made explicit sexual comments and propositions to her, pressed himself against her, and even touched her.
The employee reported the incident to her superiors, but later felt that she was not being treated appropriately and that the matter was not being handled properly, and she chose to resign. She subsequently filed a claim with the Labor Court seeking compensation from the State for failure to prevent and address the harassment, for unlawful discrimination, and for emotional distress and loss of earnings.
The central question raised in the case was the scope of the duties imposed on an employer under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law, and in particular whether those duties also apply where the harasser is a third party to the employment relationship, rather than an employee or supervisor acting on the employer’s behalf—in this case, a hospitalized patient. The court analyzed the language of the law and held that, according to its wording, an employer’s liability focuses on sexual harassment committed within the framework of the employment relationship and by an employee or a supervisor on the employer’s behalf, even if that supervisor is not directly employed by the employer. At the same time, the law does not expressly impose liability on an employer where the harasser is an external party to the employment relationship.
Nevertheless, the court held that it is unacceptable for an employee to be exposed to sexual harassment by a person external to the employment relationship who is regularly present in the work environment—such as a patient, service provider, or other outside party—while the employer is exempt from any duty to prevent or investigate the matter. The court held that where the law is silent, the gap should be filled by principles drawn from general law, and in particular by the enhanced duty of good faith that applies to an employer within the employment relationship. On that basis, it held that an employer has a duty to prevent and address sexual harassment directed at its employees even where it is committed by an outside party who is neither an employee nor a supervisor acting on the employer’s behalf.
Applying that principle to the specific case, the court held that it was not clear that the hospital had done everything in its power to prevent harassment. Although employees had been provided with panic buttons and it had been determined that an additional staff member would always be present in the area, the training given to employees on patient violence did not sufficiently address sexual harassment. In addition, it was found that no practical drill had been conducted on the use of the panic button. The court further held that after the incident, and after the employee reported it, no adequate inquiry was conducted, and she did not receive an appropriate response to an event she had experienced as traumatic. Ultimately, the employee was awarded NIS 75,000 for emotional distress, as well as NIS 15,000 in legal costs.
The Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law
It is important to note that in Israel, the Labor Court’s jurisdiction to hear claims under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law is generally limited to circumstances involving harassment within the framework of an employment relationship. In other words, the employment nexus is a central condition for bringing such proceedings before the Labor Court. At the same time, case law shows that the term “within the framework of an employment relationship” may, in practice, be interpreted more broadly than is commonly assumed, especially where the incident is directly connected to the workplace, managers, service providers, patients, or others who are regularly present at the workplace.
In practice, an employer’s responsibility is not limited only to its direct employees. Israeli law recognizes that the duties to prevent and address sexual harassment also apply in relation to workers employed through manpower contractors or service contractors and assigned to the service recipient. Accordingly, an organization cannot simply rely on the argument that “the complainant is not our employee” if, in practice, that person works at its premises, under its managers, or as an integral part of its day-to-day operations.
Another important point is that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law imposes liability on an employer also with respect to the conduct of a supervisor acting on its behalf, even if that supervisor is not employed by the employer. In practical terms, this means that even where the person involved is a freelancer, consultant, external service provider, external project manager, or another office holder acting in the organization’s name or on its behalf—if that person exercises authority over employees or is integrated into the management structure, the organization may bear liability for that person’s actions. This trend is also consistent with the rationale reflected in the Tel Aviv Labor Court’s decision: the protection afforded to employees is assessed according to the reality of the workplace, and not solely according to the formal contractual structure.
Recommendations for Employers
In light of these two decisions, we recommend that employers ensure that their organizations have a clear policy for the prevention of sexual harassment, which is published and brought to the attention of all employees. Given that the provisions of the law also apply in relation to various contractor personnel assigned to the employer, it is advisable to ensure that service contractors also bring the law’s requirements to the attention of their employees.
It should also be considered whether to establish procedures that apply not only to employees, but also to contractors, service providers, suppliers, patients, clients, and others present in the work environment. While an employer does not have the same supervisory authority over such persons, putting such procedures in place may be regarded as a step taken by the employer to protect its employees from sexual harassment.
We would, of course, be pleased to assist in reviewing existing organizational procedures, updating policies, conducting training sessions, and adapting investigation and enforcement mechanisms to the requirements of the law and developing case law.
The above content is a summary provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon without obtaining further professional legal counsel.
