The Supreme Court has found the rejection of a discrimination compensation claim to be erroneous in a case concerning a bank employee who was assigned to a job outside her area of expertise instead of her former position upon returning from maternity leave. The High Court pointed out that the employer could not explain the job change with concrete reasons and overturned the decision on these grounds.
According to the case file, the woman, who worked as a senior bank analyst at a private bank, went on maternity leave following her twin pregnancy. Upon returning to work, she alleged that the banking sector responsibility she had previously handled was given to another employee, and she was assigned to monitor the insurance sector.
The plaintiff employee claimed that she was subjected to psychological pressure after her pregnancy, that her performance scores were lowered, and that she received lower salary increases compared to other employees. Stating that she could not get results from her requests for reinstatement to her former position, premium payments, and correction of salary increases, she terminated her employment contract for just cause.
In the lawsuit filed, claims were made for non-pecuniary damages, severance pay, overtime and annual leave pay, as well as premiums, financial losses, and discrimination compensation. The bank, while acknowledging that the employee returned to work after maternity leave, argued that the duties of senior analysts could be changed and that a sector change would not be considered a fundamental change in the employment contract.
BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTED TO THE EMPLOYER
The Court of First Instance accepted the employee's severance pay claim; however, it rejected the claims for discrimination and non-pecuniary damages on the grounds that the allegations could not be proven. The Regional Court of Justice also did not accept the objections to the decision made upon the applications of the parties. The file was moved to the Supreme Court for appellate review.
In the Supreme Court's review, it was stated that another person was employed in the employee's place while she was on maternity leave, and that she was assigned the task of monitoring the insurance sector upon her return. The High Court stated that when the evidence in the file and witness testimonies are evaluated together, it was revealed that the employee was offered a position outside her area of expertise instead of her former job after maternity leave.
The decision emphasized that within the scope of the last paragraph of Article 5 of the Labor Law No. 4857, the employee strongly demonstrated the possibility of the existence of a violation; after this stage, the burden of proof that no discrimination occurred shifted to the employer.
The Supreme Court concluded that the employer could not demonstrate with concrete facts why the employee's position and duties before pregnancy were changed after birth. Stating that the reasons requiring the employee to be treated differently could not be explained either, the High Court found the rejection of the discrimination compensation claim to be erroneous and overturned the decision.
News Source: 12punto
