Former PMO Employee Sues Sara Netanyahu Over Alleged Abusive Conduct

Yechiel Ohav Ami, a 61-year-old former employee of the Israeli Prime Minister's office, has filed a lawsuit against Sara Netanyahu, wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The complaint, lodged with the Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem, seeks significant financial compensation. Mr. Ohav Ami alleges he suffered severe insults from Sara Netanyahu during his employment, detailing a pattern of verbal abuse and unreasonable demands throughout his tenure.

Details of Alleged Insults

Yechiel Ohav Ami claims Sara Netanyahu frequently yelled at him, directed insults, and demanded tasks he considered abnormal. These demands, according to his complaint, often extended beyond the scope of his official duties as an operations assistant. He specifically alleges that on one occasion, she instructed him to clean the kitchen floor "crawling on his stomach," a task he found demeaning and inappropriate. Mr. Ohav Ami also accused her of wishing him cancer and death after she reportedly claimed he had autism, a statement he found deeply offensive and unprofessional. According to his allegations, Sara Netanyahu told him she was "the number one psychiatrist in the country with no competitor," further illustrating what he described as her domineering and dismissive attitude.

Mr. Ohav Ami had been employed as an operations assistant at Netanyahu's headquarters since September 2025. His lawsuit outlines a workplace environment that he claims was characterized by constant tension and verbal aggression from the Prime Minister's wife. This legal action follows a similar case in 2016, when maintenance worker Guy Eliyahu received compensation after presenting claims about a work environment characterized by shouting, reprimands, and insults, alongside extremely long working hours. Mr. Eliyahu's case noted concerns about the treatment of staff within the Prime Minister's official residence, drawing public attention to the working conditions there.

Official Response and Counterclaims

The Prime Minister's office rejected the lawsuit's accusations, stating that the former employee seeks money from the state after his employment concluded. This response directly addresses the financial compensation sought by Yechiel Ohav Ami through his legal action, implying that his claims are financially motivated rather than based on legitimate grievances. The office's statement showed their position that the allegations are unfounded and serve primarily as an attempt to extract funds.

In a separate development, Sara Netanyahu filed a counterclaim against Mr. Ohav Ami. Her counterclaim accuses the former employee of illegally photographing the Prime Minister's home, an action she contends was a serious breach of trust and security. She further alleges that these actions constituted a violation of her privacy, detailing concerns about the unauthorized capturing of images within her private residence. This counterclaim introduces another dimension to the legal dispute, shifting some focus onto Mr. Ohav Ami's conduct during his employment.

Past Legal Precedents

Past legal precedents include a significant 2016 ruling by the Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem. In that case, former employee Meni Naftali was awarded 170,000 shekels in compensation. The court's decision followed its finding of abusive working conditions at the Prime Minister's residence, which constituted a pattern of mistreatment. This judgment established a precedent regarding the responsibilities of employers within the Prime Minister's household, emphasizing the need for a safe and respectful work environment. The court's findings in the Naftali case detailed an environment that contributed to the employee's distress, leading to the substantial financial award. This previous legal outcome notes the court's willingness to address claims of workplace abuse within the Prime Minister's official residence, setting a benchmark for subsequent cases such as those brought by Mr. Eliyahu and now Mr. Ohav Ami. The ongoing legal proceedings will likely refer to these prior judgments as the court evaluates the merits of the current claims.