27.06.2026 15:47
The last word in the case filed by a restaurant manager, who was dismissed without compensation for allegedly using phrases such as "darling, honey, are you single?" towards female customers and colleagues, was spoken by the Court of Cassation. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the local court's decision that the employment contract was terminated for just cause.
A person working as a manager at a restaurant allegedly caused discomfort to colleagues and female customers by using terms of endearment like "dear" and "sweetheart." The restaurant owner, noticing the disruption of workplace peace, dismissed the manager. S.M., who appealed to the Labor Court, claimed that he was accused of harassment for using such words, but argued that no such conversation occurred with any customer, and that he was being made a scapegoat based on conversations among colleagues in the break room. He alleged that he gave an oral defense but was not given a written defense, and requested that the reason for termination reported to the Social Security Institution with code (46) be corrected.
"FED DRINK WITH HIS OWN HAND, ASKED 'WOULD YOU CONSIDER MARRIAGE?'"
The defendant business owner stated that the plaintiff worked as a restaurant manager in the food and beverage sector, and that the employment contract was rightfully terminated under Article 25/II-(e) of Labor Law No. 4857 due to inappropriate behavior and statements disrupting the work environment and workflow. Notifications from three separate employees of the workplace indicated that the worker used words like "darling" and "dear" toward coworkers, attempted to physically serve drinks with his own hand, and made inappropriate remarks about some customers, asking "would they consider marriage?"
The defendant business owner said, "We determined that the worker made disturbing comments about visiting relatives of employees, such as 'is he single?' and 'can you set me up?', continued these conversations despite warnings, and that the plaintiff's behavior did not conform to truthfulness and loyalty and was of a nature to disturb others. The complaints of employees were recorded in written minutes, and the plaintiff was asked for a defense; the plaintiff refused to sign the notification regarding the defense request, and therefore, we believe the employment contract was rightfully terminated under Article 25/II-(e) of Law No. 4857."
COURT DISMISSED THE CASE
The Labor Court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff requested the change of the termination code reported to the Social Security Institution by the defendant employer, and it was established through witness testimonies that the plaintiff's employment contract was rightfully terminated. The decision was appealed. The Regional Court of Appeal rejected the objection.
SUPREME COURT CONFIRMED THE DECISION
Upon appeal, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stepped in. The decision stated, "The appealed decision is in accordance with procedure and law based on the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the documents they rely on, the legal rules applicable to the dispute, the characterization of the legal relationship, the conditions of the action, the rules of procedure and evidence, and the reasons stated in the decision; the reasons put forward by the plaintiff in the appeal petition are not of a nature to require the reversal of the decision. It was decided unanimously to uphold the decision of the first instance court."