Shabbat Parashat Vayikra 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Back Pay for a Junior Lawyer – part I

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) worked for the defendant’s (=def) law firm, first as an intern and then as a lawyer, from 2014-2020, for a very low salary. After leave due to the pandemic, pl’s employment ceased. Pl is suing for being paid less than the minimum wage for full-time work, for insufficient and delayed pension and other entitlements, and for an improper firing. Def counters that pl was a part-time worker and thus was paid sufficiently. Def also denies firing pl. Rather, pl refused to take on new cases, to which def commented that those who do not work cannot stay on, prompting pl to take his things and leave.

Ruling: Beit din’s policy (we omit details here) is that the nation’s labor laws, including minimum wage requirements, are halachically binding. Since def received monthly 2,000 NIS as an intern and even as a regular worker, 3,500 NIS, which are under the minimum wage for a full-time worker (43 hours a week), we must determine how much pl worked.

Both sides admit there was never a formal document stipulating pl’s work commitment, which is regrettable and even unlawful. Pl says that there was not even an oral agreement, but def claims that it was agreed that pl would work part-time. Def signed a letter for the bar association, when pl was an intern, stating that pl worked full-time. Def claims that he did this as a favor upon pl’s request, to further pl’s professional accreditation. While we do not condone misleading others (i.e., the bar association), previous interns testified that def did the same for them, and since pl admitted making the request, we do not see the letter as admission of the amount of time that pl worked.

The pay stubs refer to 93 monthly hours, approximately half of full-time hours. While def did not regularly give pl the pay stubs, they were generated as a formal document, and pl received them whenever he requested them. In general, we assume that official documents, such as this, are not falsified until it is proven otherwise (see Rashba, Bava Batra 171a). The pay stub is also correct regarding the amount received. Also, the witnesses who held pl’s position all said that they did part-time work. While this is not a proof that this was the situation for pl, it does strengthen that possibility.

To prove that he put in full-time work, pl presented 222 emails that he sent from work (he did not have email at home) during afternoons and 218 legal documents spanning 826 pages he produced. However, this is not proof of full-time work, as the number of emails comes just to about one a week and the legal documents were for the most part, standard forms into which one just puts in basic client information. Pl also admitted that there were times when even during the morning, he worked on private portfolios.

The fact that pl worked for six years without complaining he was paid under minimum wage is significant. Although silence does not always indicate agreement, the fact that pl continued to act under these agreements (by coming to work – see Netivot Hamishpat 81:5), seems to indicate that the salary fit the actual number of hours.

Based on compromise that is close to judgment, we will credit pl with 28 hours weekly.  

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend