A young woman working as a senior bank analyst in a private bank experienced the shock of her life upon returning from maternity leave. The banker mother, who could not receive the bonuses she was entitled to, was appointed to a position outside her area of expertise. The banker mother, who received a lower raise compared to her colleagues, resigned and went to the Labor Court.
He claimed that psychological harassment (mobbing) was applied and that the unethical attitudes and behaviors of the manager appointed to the position of department manager turned into planned behaviors aimed at harassment and intimidation over time. Pointing out that her psychological pressure started after she became pregnant with twins, the plaintiff stated that the principle of equality was violated due to her pregnancy and discrimination compensation should be awarded. She claimed that the bank managers to whom she conveyed her troubles adopted an aggressive attitude towards her, and that when she returned to work after her post-natal leave, the responsibility of the banking sector was taken away from her and transferred to someone else who was newly hired.
He noted that he was left to follow the insurance industry, disregarding his entire career, and that as a result of his objection to low performance scores, he raised the issues of giving the deserved bonus, correcting the wage increase and giving him back his previous position before going on maternity leave, in the meeting he held with his manager and the General Manager, but to no avail. Stating that he terminated his employment contract for all these reasons, he requested a decision to collect non-pecuniary compensation, severance pay, overtime pay, annual leave fee, premium, material damage (treatment costs) and discrimination compensation from the defendant.
The defendant bank lawyer also claimed that she returned to work after maternity leave, that she was given the insurance sector instead of the banking sector, that the job descriptions of senior analysts explained which sectors they would work in, and that there was no fundamental change in the employment contract. The Labor Court, which ruled on severance pay, rejected the discrimination claims on the grounds that they could not be proven.
In the decision; It was reminded that the twin pregnancy experienced by the plaintiff was already stressful compared to a normal pregnancy, and when the liability of the plaintiff's duty and position was added to this, the causal link between the premature birth incident and the alleged actions of the employer would be severed. It was decided to accept the case partially on the grounds that the claims for discrimination compensation and non-pecuniary damages should be rejected, since a planned and systematic harassment could not be proven convincingly. The lawyers of the parties appealed the decision.
The Regional Court of Justice (BAM) rejected the objections. When the decision was appealed by the parties, the 9th Supreme Court of Appeals Civil Chamber stepped in.
The following statements were made in the precedent decision:
"In the concrete dispute, it is established that the plaintiff employee worked as an investment/research/stock research/senior analyst at the workplace, that another person was employed by the employer while she was on maternity leave, that she was given a job following the insurance sector when she started working after maternity leave, that the plaintiff-counterdefendant employee did not accept to work in this position and terminated the employment contract for justified reasons. Although the courts decided to reject the plaintiff's claim for discrimination compensation on the grounds that she could not prove her claim of discrimination, the rejection decision does not comply with the scope of the file. Considering the evidence and the statements of the witnesses heard, it has been proven by the plaintiff that the plaintiff worker went on maternity leave, that the plaintiff was offered another job instead of her old job after the maternity leave, and that this job was outside the plaintiff's area of expertise.
The plaintiff has presented a situation that strongly indicates the possibility of a violation in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 5 of Law No. 4857. In this case, it is understood that the employer, who has the burden of proving that there was no such violation, could not reveal with concrete facts the reasons why the plaintiff's position and duty before birth were changed after birth, and the reasons that required different treatment to the plaintiff. In this case, while the request for discrimination compensation should have been accepted by the First Instance Court, its rejection with written justification was erroneous and required reversal."
