02.11.2026 17:32
The Court of Cassation, signing a decision that closely concerns millions of working mothers, ruled that forcing a female worker to work in a job outside her expertise after maternity leave requires discrimination compensation. With the precedent decision that makes mothers who both work and raise children smile, the practice of giving low raises to female workers returning from maternity leave and changing their unit without their consent will be considered grounds for discrimination compensation.
A young woman working as a senior bank analyst at a private bank experienced the shock of her life upon returning from maternity leave. The banker mother, unable to receive the bonuses she had earned, was assigned to a position outside her area of expertise. The banker mother, who received a lower raise rate compared to her colleagues, resigned and went to the Labor Court. She claimed that she was subjected to psychological harassment (mobbing), and that the unethical attitudes and behaviors of the manager appointed to the position of department manager gradually turned into planned behaviors aimed at wearing her down and intimidating her.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE INCREASED DURING PREGNANCY
The plaintiff, noting that her psychological pressures began after she became pregnant with twins, stated that she was treated contrary to the principle of equality due to her pregnancy and that a discrimination compensation should be awarded. She claimed that the bank managers to whom she conveyed her difficulties adopted an aggressive attitude toward her, and that when she returned to work after maternity leave, responsibility for the banking sector was taken from her and transferred to someone newly hired.
SHE COULD NOT RETURN TO HER FORMER POSITION
She recorded that, with her entire career disregarded, she was left with monitoring the insurance sector, and that in the meeting she had with her manager and the General Manager following her objection to low performance scores, she raised the matters of paying the bonus she had earned, correcting her salary raise, and restoring the position she held before going on maternity leave, but she obtained no result. Stating that for all these reasons she terminated her employment contract for just cause, she requested that non-pecuniary compensation, severance pay, overtime pay, annual leave pay, bonus, material damage (treatment expenses), and discrimination compensation be ordered to be collected from the defendant.
THE LABOR COURT DISMISSED THE CASE
The defendant bank's lawyer argued 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 set out which sectors they would cover, and that there was no fundamental change in the employment contract. The Labor Court, which ruled for severance pay, rejected the discrimination claims on the ground that they could not be proven. In the judgment, it was recalled that the plaintiff's twin pregnancy was already more stressful than a normal pregnancy, and that when the responsibility of the plaintiff's duty and position was added to this, the causal link between the premature birth and the employer's alleged acts would be severed.
THE COURT OF CASSATION REVERSED THE DECISION
It was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the claims for discrimination compensation and non-pecuniary compensation should be rejected, since a planned and systematic campaign of wearing down had not been proven in a manner sufficient to support such a conclusion. The parties' lawyers appealed the decision. The Regional Court of Justice (BAM) rejected the objections. When the decision was appealed by the parties, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stepped in.
The precedent decision included the following statements: “In the concrete dispute, it is established that the plaintiff employee worked at the workplace as an investment/research/equity research/senior analyst, that while she was on maternity leave the employer employed another person in her place, that when she started work after maternity leave she was given the task of monitoring the insurance sector, that the plaintiff-counter-defendant employee did not accept working in this position, and that she terminated her employment contract for just cause. Although the courts decided to reject the claim for discrimination compensation on the ground that the plaintiff could not prove her discrimination claim, the rejection decision does not fit the case file. Considering the evidence in the case file and the statements of the witnesses heard, it has been proven by the plaintiff that the plaintiff employee went on maternity leave, that after maternity leave the plaintiff was offered another job instead of her former job, and that this job was outside the plaintiff's area of expertise. The plaintiff has put forward a situation that strongly indicates the possibility of a violation within the meaning of the last paragraph of Article 5 of Law No. 4857. In this case, it is understood that the employer, which bears the burden of proving that no such violation exists, could not demonstrate with concrete facts the reasons why the plaintiff's position and duty before birth were changed after birth and the reasons requiring different treatment of the plaintiff. Therefore, although the Court of First Instance should have accepted the claim for discrimination compensation, its rejection with the written reasoning was erroneous and required reversal.”