Family Domestic Violence and Pension Benefits

The question to be decided by the Labor Court was under what circumstances a woman can be granted Pension Benefits (Survivors` Pension or “Kitzvat She’erim” in Hebrew) for a deceased husband as granted by the fund in spite of the fact that they were not living together for the last 15 years.

The husband worked for the City of Tel Aviv and had a Pension Plan from the city. The wife sued the City Pension Fund claiming she was the deceased’s legitimate wife and his inheritor therefore deserving a monthly payment as his widow.

The City insisted that the couple were separated (not living under the same roof), the wife did not depend on the husband anymore and was not being paid alimony by him (the Eligibility threshold) and therefore was not qualified by law to receive Pension’s Benefits.

The woman argued that the statutory residence requirement applies only to “common marriage”, and in any case does not apply in her case because she had left the house due to domestic violence towards her. She also argued that over the years she was afraid to sue for maintenance/alimony because the husband was a very violent person. She added that it is not right to use this fact against her, when according to law, a woman leaving her husband as a result of the husband’s behavior is entitled to maintenance/alimony, and hence for survivors` pension.

On the other hand, the City claimed that the couple broke up and were in a "permanent separation" and during the previous past years she had supported herself alone and thus was not eligible to a pension. Another argument they made is that the relationship between the deceased husband and the woman is not relevant in this case.

The Honorable Judge Mrs. Leah Glicksman decided that: A woman, who suffered from violence for years and therefore had to leave her husband, is indeed entitled to survivors` pension under law and by virtue of considerations of justice, honesty and appropriate policy.

The Honorable Judge also stated that: The result of the plaintiff`s request to receive a pension being denied means being punished twice for her late husband’s violence: once in his life - due to the violent behavior of the deceased causing the wife to flee the apartment (and making her living by doing common cleaning jobs), when the deceased refused to give her a divorce and allow her to build a new life; and a second time after his death – by denying her rights by law because of his violence towards her.

The Honorable Judge added that in such a case the proper policy should be to encourage women suffering from domestic violence to separate from the violent spouse and leave to safety. Therefore the necessary consequence must be not to deny their entitlement to a survivors` pension.

Had the woman sued the deceased (which she did not because she was afraid of him) for maintenance/alimony she would be found entitled to them, in which case, the municipality was obligated to pay her pension anyway.

The Judge went even further, stating that the City’s claims that the deceased and his wife’s relationship was “not relevant” was a wrong assumption and quite the opposite: The City (an employer) must help and assist their workers who are suffering from domestic violence, and respectively there is nothing wrong with imposing on the employer the requirement to pay the widow of a violent employee appropriate benefit of survivors` pension.

Word of wisdom:

Violence is a family issue with long-term consequences. Although the woman was entitled to receive her deceased husband’s pension, it may have been in her best interests to receive benefits such as alimony while he was still alive as well. One should never be afraid and know that fear is her worst own enemy.

Sincerely,
 

Tzvi Szajnbrum, Attorney at Law