The Türkiye Human Rights and Equality Institution (TİHEK) has imposed an administrative advantageous on a financial institution for violating anti-discrimination legal guidelines by canceling the recruitment of a girl who had handed related exams, citing her being pregnant as the rationale for the cancellation.
The incident unfolded when the applicant, who had certified in a written examination and had been deemed appropriate for employment in an interview, obtained an electronic mail from the financial institution stating that she was appointed to a department in Bahçelievler, Istanbul. She was requested to submit her paperwork to the department inside per week. During the doc submission course of, the applicant knowledgeable the financial institution’s human assets division of her being pregnant. In response, the officer knowledgeable her that the scenario could be reported to the authorities, and she or he would be told accordingly.
Subsequently, the financial institution by no means contacted the applicant once more. When she visited the assigned department, she was knowledgeable that her identify was not on the recruitment checklist. On the identical day, an electronic mail was despatched to her stating that “the appointment was invalid due to re-evaluation and necessity.”
The applicant lodged a criticism with TİHEK, alleging that she had confronted gender discrimination on account of her being pregnant.
After reviewing the case, TİHEK approached the financial institution and listened to their protection, which was discovered to be unjustified. TİHEK dominated that the financial institution had violated the prohibition of discrimination and imposed an administrative advantageous of TL 89,571 ($3,230) on the financial institution in accordance with the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution Law No. 6701.
TİHEK’s determination emphasised that Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution ensures equal rights for all and prohibits discrimination. It additionally cited Article 6 of Law No. 6701, which states that employers can’t reject employment purposes on the grounds of being pregnant, maternity and little one care. The determination concluded that the financial institution had subjected the pregnant girl to differential remedy with out an goal and affordable justification, violating her proper to work with out discrimination based mostly on gender.
The financial institution was unable to supply an goal and affordable cause for the cancellation of the appointment, and no proof indicated that the applicant was unsuitable for the job {qualifications}. The determination discovered that the financial institution’s actions constituted a transparent violation of anti-discrimination legal guidelines, particularly the prohibition of direct gender-based discrimination within the discipline of employment.
Source: www.dailysabah.com