High Court presses state on petition to cancel mandatory retirement

One justice suggested that the mandatory retirement age could be raised higher than 67, having already been raised from 65, because of longer lifespans.

November 19, 2014 04:09
2 minute read.
Elderly couple

Elderly couple (illustrative). (photo credit: INGIMAGE)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief


The High Court of Justice discussed on Tuesday whether the law regarding mandatory retirement was too inflexible and unconstitutional as part of an appeal filed by leading professors who oppose the present employment law.

An expanded, seven-justice panel of the High Court of Justice presided over by Supreme Court Deputy President Miriam Naor led the hearing, which was live-streamed from the courts’ website as part of an ongoing project to increase transparency on key constitutional cases.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

The justices’ questions to Chani Ofek, the state attorney’s representative, included hypothetical suggestions to teak the current law, in which retirement at the age of 67 is mandatory unless both the employer and the employee want the employment relationship to continue.

One justice suggested that the mandatory retirement age could be raised higher than 67, having already been raised from 65, because of longer lifespans.

Another justice suggested that if there were no law mandating forced retirement at a certain age, such as 67, employers and employees could decide the issue on a case by case basis, but that making retirement mandatory went too far.

Ofek defended the present law, and said that without mandatory retirement the younger generation would not be able to find jobs.

The absence of mandatory retirement would more likely defend wealthier peoples’ job security at poorer peoples’ expense, she added.


The high-profile academics who supported the petition to the High Court include professors Asa Kasher, Ruth Ben-Israel and Mordecai Segev. The petition was filed by attorney Shoshana Gavish on behalf of her husband, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology professor Moshe Gavish.

Shoshana Gavish pointed out that the arguments the state made about negative impacts for younger workers in countries where mandatory retirement was eliminated was usually a passing, three year phenomenon.

A spokesman for Gavish said that while the 2012 Weinberg decision had helped some elderly workers avoid mandatory retirement under the present law, the petition was far more ambitious in seeking to throw out the law in its entirety.

At the end of the hearing, the court ordered the state to give an opinion on the applicability of the Weinberg decision within 20 days.

In February, the High Court of Justice issued an interim conditional order requiring the state explain why the retirement age of 67 should not be voluntary, as opposed to mandatory.

That order, as well as the order to analyze the Weinberg decision’s implications, may give guarded optimism to the petitioners that the court is seriously considering overturning the law.

The petition argues that the law requiring mandatory retirement at 67 from certain positions was passed at a time when people died and became physically disabled at younger ages, and notes that many democratic countries, including the US, Canada and Australia, have already changed any such discriminatory laws.

In response, the state had said that there are other democratic countries that still have a mandatory retirement age, including in the European Union, adding that the cut off age of 67 was selected after consultation with expert sociologists.

Also, the state noted that the law does not really require mandatory retirement, in that an option to carry on working past the retirement age exists if both the employer and employee want to continue the employment.

Rather, the employee only need retire if the employer does not agree to continued employment, the state said.

Gavish said that without High Court intervention, “the chances of elderly workers to avoid discrimination under the law is zero.”

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

The United Nations Security Council meets on the situation in the Middle East
September 20, 2018
WATCH LIVE: UN Security Council debates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict