08.11.2026 13:00
A banker who worked as a team leader at a bank for 13 years was dismissed after reporting to a senior manager that she was subjected to psychological harassment by the branch manager. In the lawsuit filed, the court determined that the manager had sent emails to employees telling them not to go to the toilet frequently and not even to have diarrhea, and sentenced the bank to pay non-pecuniary damages. The decision was unanimously upheld by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
In the lawsuit filed by a bank employee who was dismissed after reporting to a senior manager that they had been subjected to mobbing, the court ordered the bank to pay non-pecuniary damages. The ruling emphasized that it was established that humiliating instructions had been given regarding employees' toilet and break times.
13-YEAR TEAM LEADER DISMISSED
The bank employee, who had served as a team leader at a bank for 13 years, applied to the labor court after their employment contract was terminated. The plaintiff stated that they were subjected to the harsh, humiliating, threatening, and degrading management approach of the new manager assigned to the unit.
Stating that they had reported the problems experienced to a senior manager, the plaintiff claimed that afterward the manager turned against them and applied a policy of pressure and intimidation. The plaintiff alleged that the manager interfered with break times. They also asserted that while other employees were allowed administrative leave, they were not granted leave.
ALLEGED THAT THE MANAGER INSULTED THEM AT A MEETING
The plaintiff alleged that at a meeting attended by all team leaders, the manager used expressions such as “dishonorable” and “without character” toward them. They argued that the manager changed their seating position in order to observe them closely, made them sit directly opposite, and tried to isolate them.
The bank employee recounted that they were dismissed while waiting for a resolution to their complaint. They stated that they had received treatment with diagnoses of depression and hypertension due to the pressure, intimidation, and discrimination they were subjected to. On these grounds, they demanded non-pecuniary damages, material damages, and discrimination compensation.
BANK: ALL LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS WERE PAID
The defendant bank's lawyer, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff's employment contract had been terminated for reasons arising from the workplace and the requirements of the job, with all legal entitlements paid. The lawyer noted that the Disciplinary Board's assessment concluded that no intimidation or mobbing had been applied toward the plaintiff, and requested that the case be dismissed.
“AN E-MAIL WAS EVEN SENT SAYING NO ONE WAS TO HAVE DIARRHEA”
The labor court hearing the case drew attention to emails sent by the branch manager to employees. It was determined that these emails contained humiliating instructions to the effect that breaks should not be extended, that employees should not go to the toilet frequently, and that they should not even have diarrhea. The court found that the acts of psychological harassment began when the person with whom the plaintiff had problems came to the branch as manager.
The ruling included the following statements: “It was not only that the defendant submitted no evidence that the plaintiff's performance was low; the witnesses heard also stated that the plaintiff's performance was good. It was understood from witness statements that the communication problem cited as grounds for termination of the plaintiff's employment contract resulted from the other team leaders cutting off communication with the plaintiff as a consequence of the manager's psychological harassment. It is established that, regarding breaks, there was a problem even when someone went to the toilet twice in a row, that an email was even sent saying no one would have diarrhea, that a warning message was sent to the plaintiff regarding breaks, and that a few hours after this message on the same day, accusatory emails with humiliating words were sent about those who went on break. It was understood from witness statements and emails that the plaintiff's location was changed and they were kept under surveillance, and that only the plaintiff's location was changed so they were kept under surveillance in this way and their break times were monitored.”
“ACTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT HAVE BEEN PROVEN”
The continuation of the ruling contained the following findings: “It is also established that the plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment, that break times were monitored, that the defendant's witnesses confirmed that the plaintiff worked while on annual leave and that what was said at the meeting was true, and that although downsizing was cited as the reason for termination, no one other than the plaintiff was dismissed on the same grounds. When all of this is considered together with the submission of doctor's reports indicating that the plaintiff's health was adversely affected by the entire process, acts of psychological harassment have been proven, resulting in the plaintiff being humiliated, excluded, and isolated for a long time, their complaints not being responded to for a long time, and, on top of that, being punished by termination of their employment contract. It was accepted that the plaintiff was entitled to non-pecuniary damages, and the case was partially accepted on the grounds that the conditions for material damages and discrimination compensation were not met.”
COURT OF CASSATION UPHELD UNANIMOUSLY
The defendant bank appealed the decision to the regional court of appeal. The Regional Court of Justice rejected the appeal on the merits on the grounds that the labor court's assessment of the facts and law was appropriate. The bank then appealed the decision to the Court of Cassation. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, after reviewing the file, upheld the local court's decision unanimously.