AI-generated summary
The Pregnant Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2022 was passed by the US Congress with bipartisan support and went into effect in June 2023. This law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide a 'reasonable accommodation' for medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth.
A group of former Amazon warehouse workers has filed a lawsuit accusing the company of systematic discrimination against pregnant workers.
In the case file, it was claimed that "basic facilities were not provided" to pregnant employees, and that employees who asked for leave for some hospital visits or mothers with babies who took a break were punished.
In the lawsuit filed in a federal court in New York, four women proposed a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of violating the Fair Treatment of Pregnant Employees Act of 2022.
On the other hand, in the statement made by Amazon, while the allegations were rejected, it was claimed that the description of the events in the petition was incorrect.
Plaintiffs accused managers at the Amazon warehouse of violating federal law by refusing to provide a pregnant employee with a stool or give her a bathroom break.
The Pregnant Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2022 was passed by the US Congress with bipartisan support and went into effect in June 2023.
This law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for medical conditions related to pregnancy and birth.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The court will make its first decision on the validity of the allegations in the petition.
Likely · Within weeks

Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor's Office announced that the allegations about detainees who were prevented from watching Super League matches do not reflect the truth. There are 50 free television channels in penal institutions, and match broadcasts are covered by dividend income from the escrow accounts of convicts and detainees. Since the publisher's subscription has turned into commercial status, this resource has become insufficient for the 2026-2027 season and no new subscription requests have been received.

In his statement taken within the scope of the investigation regarding Denizolgun's incident on September 7, 2016, Demirkol stated that his statement dated August 26, 2026 lasted 3-4 hours, that he was hungry and thirsty, that he was sweating from stress, and that his hands were shaking. 'It is not possible for me to reach enough truth in this stressful environment. He said, "It is difficult for me to clearly remember the events of 10 years ago" and did not accept the charge of false statement.

40 people lost their lives and 2 people were injured in the February 6 earthquakes in Sami Bey Apartment in Güzelyalı District of Adana's Çukurova district. Adana Chief Public Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit against the building's contractors Abdullah Aybaba and Eda Aybaba Çelik, as well as Seyhan Municipality's former Zoning Director Alim Erdoğan and former Survey and Survey Technician Sunay Meydan, demanding imprisonment of up to 22 years and 6 months each for the crime of 'causing the death and injury of more than one person through conscious negligence'. The files were combined and the detained Abdullah Aybaba was connected to the hearing via SEGBİS from prison. Defendant Aybaba stated that no cement or material was stolen in the building, and that during the earthquake, the upper floors first shook and broke away, and then the building collapsed. Mehmet Üsgüloğlu, the victim's lawyer, demanded a separate life sentence for each death, saying that the defendant should have fled abroad and reported the situation if he had good intentions. Abdullah Aybaba stated that he wanted to come to Adana after the first earthquake, but went abroad due to threatening posts, and then returned to the country with his own consent when he learned that a red notice had been issued. Victim lawyer Dudu Büşra Maksutoğlu Karadeniz stated that the defendant fled the country one day after the earthquake and requested life imprisonment for each deceased separately. Defendant Aybaba's lawyer stated that his client was 78 years old, prison conditions were harsh, and requested that he be released under house arrest. Eda Aybaba Çelik's lawyer, on the other hand, said that his client only became a partner of the company in 1994 in accordance with the legal procedure, did not make any profit and had no construction-related activities, and asked for an arrest warrant not for arrest, but for testifying. The court decided to continue Abdullah Aybaba's detention, to wait for the execution of the arrest warrant issued with a red notice about Eda Aybaba Çelik, and to reject at this stage his requests for a new expert report to be prepared by taking a core from Ece Apartment. The next hearing will be held on November 26. During the trial process, it was determined that Abdullah Aybaba went abroad from Istanbul Airport one day after the earthquake, that he did not return to the country later, and that he was detained by the Thai police on April 24, brought to Türkiye on May 15, and his arrest was ordered by the Adana 4th High Criminal Court.

It was determined that images taken during the hearing of a file that was still being tried at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court were shared on social media. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office launched an ex officio investigation against those who recorded and shared images without authorization within the scope of Article 286 of the Turkish Penal Code.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the Regional Court of Justice regarding the length of service of a worker who worked in a production facility from 1994 to 2017, and recommended calculating the intermittent working time based on SSI records and sent the file to the court for re-examination.

As a result of the investigation launched into the incident in which two young people lost their lives due to the downpour in Izmir on July 12, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against 42 defendants for "negligent homicide". Izmir 10th High Criminal Court gave prison sentences in its first decision, but Izmir Regional Administrative Court 14th Criminal Chamber annulled its decision and released the detained defendants. A third expert report was added to the case, emphasizing the incident's relationship with long-term infrastructure design defects and a decision was made to appoint a new expert panel.