05.09.2026 11:40
An engineer involved in an assault outside the workplace was dismissed by the workplace management. The good news for the young engineer, whom the Labor Court did not reinstate, came from the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM). The Regional Court of Appeal stated, 'Acts and behaviors related to the worker's private life, as a rule, remain outside the employer's intervention area.'
A landmark decision was made by the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM) in a case filed by a young engineer who was dismissed from his job for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, who worked at the same workplace, outside of working hours.
LABOR COURT REJECTED REINSTATEMENT, CITING 'BREACH OF TRUST'
According to the allegations, the young engineer was fired after assaulting his girlfriend who worked at the same workplace. The engineer, who filed a lawsuit for reinstatement at the Labor Court, claimed that events in his private life were not the employer's concern. He argued that the termination was carried out before the conclusion of the criminal case files, without regard to the presumption of innocence, based on the expert report prepared within the scope of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office investigation. He alleged that he did not engage in any behavior disruptive to the workplace order, that the defendant employer breached its obligation of equal treatment by terminating only his employment contract while B.A. continued to work, and that for these reasons, the termination was contrary to law and equity. He requested the invalidation of the termination, the reinstatement of his client, and the legal consequences thereof. The defendant employer, on the other hand, stated that even though the assault occurred outside the workplace, it had negative effects on the employment relationship. The court decided to reject the case on the grounds that working with the plaintiff after the assault, which occurred outside the workplace and working hours, would damage the trust relationship, that the defendant could not be expected to continue working with the plaintiff, and that therefore the termination was valid.
BAM 7TH LEGAL DEPARTMENT EMPHASIZES 'PRIVATE LIFE' AND 'CONCRETE EVIDENCE'
The plaintiff's attorney appealed the decision. The BAM 7th Legal Department rendered a landmark ruling. In the BAM decision, it was reminded that an employee's acts and behaviors concerning their private life are, as a rule, outside the employer's intervention area; it was noted that such events can only serve as a basis for termination if it is demonstrated that they have concrete, clear, and negative repercussions on the workplace. It was emphasized that facts alleged to have occurred solely within the private sphere cannot be considered a valid reason for termination. It was stated that the event used as the justification for terminating the employment contract was understood to be based on a fact alleged to have occurred outside the workplace boundaries, within the scope of the parties' private life relationship.
"THE PRINCIPLE OF TERMINATION AS A LAST RESORT WAS NOT ADHERED TO"
The decision read as follows: "It is self-evident that even if the alleged assault outside the workplace is assumed to be proven, this situation would not, by itself, constitute a valid reason for termination for the employer; it is necessary to separately and clearly demonstrate the connection of the said act to the workplace and its concrete impact on the employment relationship. In this context, when witness statements and the entire case file are evaluated together, it is understood that there is no concrete statement or evidence indicating that the alleged act caused unrest in the workplace environment, disrupted labor peace, or negatively affected the execution of work. On the other hand, it is also understood from the case file that the unit where the plaintiff worked and the units where the third party worked were different, that the parties did not actually work together, and that the employer did not consider measures other than termination that were milder and more protective. Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff's defense was taken during a disciplinary committee meeting does not fulfill the obligation to obtain a proper defense before termination; there is no evidence in the file that the alleged act was clearly and explicitly communicated to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was given an effective opportunity to defend himself against this act. Considering all these points together, it is concluded that the connection of the alleged event to the workplace and the fact that it objectively made the employment relationship unsustainable could not be proven with concrete evidence, that the plaintiff's right to defense was not exercised in accordance with procedure, and that the principle of termination as a last resort was not adhered to. Based on this state of evidence, it is not possible to accept that the defendant employer, who bears the burden of proof, has proven that it terminated the employment contract for a valid reason. Therefore, while the case should have been accepted, ordering the plaintiff's reinstatement and its legal consequences, ruling otherwise was erroneous."