What if someone is experiencing problems at work, such as a hostile work enviroment. Perhaps the employer would rather give an employee a bad time, hoping they'll quit, as opposed to firing them (to avoid paying out unemployment benefits). How does one handle that situation? In this day and age, quiting a job might not be a good thing to do, because the next job might not be just around the corner.

In his groundbreaking work, “With All Your Possessions,” Jewish Ethics and Economic Life, Meir Tamari cites three factors that define the Jewish understanding of employer-employee relationships:

“1. The employer – employee relationship is a specific instance of contractual rights and obligations binding free agents.  All legal factors applying to contracts – regarding, e.g., duress, withdrawal and litigation – apply here. 2. The worker is entitled to special protection regarding his wages and working conditions, over and above the normal legalisms regarding contracts.  Halakhic sources understood that as a result of his dependence on his wages, the worker is far more vulnerable to delays, legal snarls and sudden changes in the market place and has to be protected. At the same time, Judaism’s symmetry in justice is reflected in its insistence that the worker has obligations as well – primarily, to render honest value for wages received….  3. A major form of protection is that granted by custom.  Thus, custom usually provides the worker with fringe benefits over and above wages agreed upon, even where such benefits are not explicit in a contract (p. 129)."

We can, therefore, conclude that, according to the standards of Jewish tradition, if an employer, in order to avoid payment of unemployment benefits to a regular full-time worker who has met her/his work obligations, intentionally creates a hostile work environment to induce a worker to quit, the employer is in violation of the spirit and, depending upon the details of the work agreement, the letter of Jewish legal tradition.  

In the United States, however, the law of the land, and not Jewish law, determines how such matters are to be resolved.  And, clearly, if the employer and/or the employee are/is not Jewish, Jewish tradition can not be expected to have any relevance in the matter.  Moreover, Jews in the United States, a country in which principles of justice apply equally to all citizens, are obligated by Jewish law to abide by the law of the land (see Talmud Bavli: Nedarim 28a, Gittin 10b, etc. and later halakhic sources).  The only instance in which Jewish law could be brought into play would be if both the employer and the worker are Jewish and both agree to resolve the matter before a Beit Din, a rabbinic court, that can act as a court of arbitration whose decision would be binding if the two parties, in accordance with civil law, vested the court with such power.

Jewish tradition aside, if the worker, in a thoughtful and responsible manner, brings the issue of the hostile work environment to the attention of the employer in an effort to resolve the situation, and the employer responds favorably, well and good.  If the employer fails to ameliorate the situation and it remains as difficult as it was or gets worse, the worker has a number of choices.  As the questioner indicates, especially in the current employment environment, it may be wisest for the worker to “suck it up” and not quit, in the hope that the employer either backs off or fires him/her so unemployment benefits could kick in.  Another tack would be to turn to one of the many organizations that specialize in helping people in such a situation, either gratis or for a modest fee.  They can easily be accessed on-line.  A third option would be to try to get the employer to agree to mediation or civil arbitration.  Finally, the worker could consult a labor lawyer who could either advise the worker or represent him if a law suit is in order.  Litigation should be a last resort because of the time, stress and expense involved.

Rabbi Joel Rembaum