The Türkiye Human Rights and Equality Institution (TİHEK) has imposed an administrative fine on a bank for violating anti-discrimination laws by canceling the recruitment of a woman who had passed relevant exams, citing her pregnancy as the reason for the cancellation.
The incident unfolded when the applicant, who had qualified in a written exam and had been deemed suitable for employment in an interview, received an email from the bank stating that she was appointed to a branch in Bahçelievler, Istanbul. She was asked to submit her documents to the branch within a week. During the document submission process, the applicant informed the bank's human resources department of her pregnancy. In response, the officer informed her that the situation would be reported to the authorities, and she would be informed accordingly.
Subsequently, the bank never contacted the applicant again. When she visited the assigned branch, she was informed that her name was not on the recruitment list. On the same day, an email was sent to her stating that "the appointment was invalid due to re-evaluation and necessity."
The applicant lodged a complaint with TİHEK, alleging that she had faced gender discrimination due to her pregnancy.
After reviewing the case, TİHEK approached the bank and listened to their defense, which was found to be unjustified. TİHEK ruled that the bank had violated the prohibition of discrimination and imposed an administrative fine of TL 89,571 ($3,230) on the bank in accordance with the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution Law No. 6701.
TİHEK's decision emphasized that Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution guarantees equal rights for all and prohibits discrimination. It also cited Article 6 of Law No. 6701, which states that employers cannot reject employment applications on the grounds of pregnancy, maternity and child care. The decision concluded that the bank had subjected the pregnant woman to differential treatment without an objective and reasonable justification, violating her right to work without discrimination based on gender.
The bank was unable to provide an objective and reasonable reason for the cancellation of the appointment, and no evidence indicated that the applicant was unsuitable for the job qualifications. The decision found that the bank's actions constituted a clear violation of anti-discrimination laws, specifically the prohibition of direct gender-based discrimination in the field of employment.
