Precedent-setting court ruling in reinstatement case: Responding to profanity with profanity can be tolerated

E.G., who worked as a customer manager at a food marketing company in İzmir, warned her male colleagues that she was "uncomfortable" with their "profane language and sexually explicit jokes."

FIRED AFTER SWEARING DURING AN ARGUMENT

According to the allegations, E.G., who received responses from her colleagues such as "you'll get used to it, just ignore it," argued with a coworker as the profanity and jokes escalated. E.G. was asked to provide a defense after she swore at her colleague and his spouse during the argument.

E.G., who admitted to using profanity, had her employment contract terminated on the grounds that: "It has been concluded that you used profane language that exceeded the boundaries of respect and courtesy toward your colleague, that these behaviors are contrary to the rules of ethics and good faith, that they deeply shook the bond of trust, disrupted the peace of the workplace, and that you made false statements in your defense. Therefore, the continuation of your employment contract has become impossible, and your employment contract has been terminated in accordance with Articles 17 and 18 of the Labor Law, with your notice pay being paid."

E.G. applied to the court requesting the determination of the invalidity of the termination and reinstatement to her job.

"CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY"

The İzmir 19th Labor Court, which examined the file, concluded that "no steps were taken by workplace authorities regarding E.G.'s complaints about profane conversations."

The court, which found E.G. justified and decided to accept her reinstatement request, included the following statements in its ruling:

"Under normal circumstances, the profane expression that the plaintiff admitted to using is of a nature that exceeds the boundaries of respect and courtesy and is of sufficient weight to be a valid reason for termination; however, it must be taken into account that the plaintiff was constantly exposed to profane and slang language, that warnings and complaints remained fruitless, and that similarly heavy profane expressions were used before the expression uttered by E.G. It must be accepted that the plaintiff spoke profanely in reaction to the events that occurred, that her expressions were at a tolerable level in the face of the male employees' discourse, and therefore the termination process was not proportionate and was contrary to the principles of termination being a last resort. Furthermore, as a result of the disciplinary investigation conducted on these events between employees, the fact that only the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated is also contrary to the principle of equality."

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Justice, which examined the file upon appeal, also rejected the appeal on its merits on the grounds that "it could not be proven that the workplace peace and order were disrupted by the plaintiff's action that was cited as the reason for termination, and that the termination was found to be disproportionate."

"OTHER WORKERS SPOKE AGAINST MY CLIENT IN COURT"

E.G.'s lawyer, Ömer Çağdaş, stated that his client had worked for about 9-10 months in an environment where there was constant profane discourse and that she was very uncomfortable with this.

Stating that his client's reaction was found to be "tolerable" by the court, Çağdaş noted the following:

"Our client spoke about the difficulties of working as a woman in a male-dominated sector. Finally, she says that she was uncomfortable due to excessive profanity by 3-4 male employees during a meeting, she reacted, and an argument broke out. A profane sentence came out of our client during the argument. Other workers used this against our client in court, saying 'she also swore.' My client had become accustomed to this situation after being exposed to such discourse for 9-10 months. Everyone in the workplace was talking like this, and it came out of my client's mouth suddenly as a reflex."

"IF THEY DO NOT REINSTATE HER, THEY MUST PAY COMPENSATION"

Expressing his happiness with the reinstatement decision for his client, Çağdaş said, "The decision of the appellate court was given as final. After receiving this decision, we are sending a notice to the employer within 10 days to start work. After this notice, the employer has 30 days. They can invite the client to work within 30 days. If they do not reinstate her, they must pay the client compensation for non-reinstatement and for the period spent unemployed."