<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00d6zel bir bankada “k\u0131demli analist” olarak g\u00f6rev yapan kad\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan, ikiz bebek d\u00fcnyaya getirdikten sonra kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 yasal do\u011fum izninin ard\u0131ndan i\u015fine d\u00f6nd\u00fc. \u0130\u015fe ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bankac\u0131l\u0131k sekt\u00f6r\u00fc sorumlulu\u011funun elinden al\u0131narak yeni i\u015fe giren bir personele devredildi\u011fini, kendisine ise uzmanl\u0131k alan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki sigorta sekt\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcn verildi\u011fini g\u00f6ren \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan; hak etti\u011fi primlerin \u00f6denmemesi ve emsallerine g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck zam uygulanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine y\u00f6netimle g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc.<\/p>\n
\n\tG\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmelerden sonu\u00e7 alamayan ve hamilelik s\u00fcrecinden itibaren sistematik psikolojik tacize (mobbing) maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshederek \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’ne ba\u015fvurdu. Davac\u0131; k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131, prim, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra “e\u015fit davranma ilkesinin ihlali” gerek\u00e7esiyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k tazminat\u0131 ile manevi tazminat talebinde bulundu.<\/p>\n
\n\tDaval\u0131 banka ise g\u00f6rev tan\u0131mlar\u0131nda analistlerin hangi sekt\u00f6rlere bakabilece\u011finin belirtildi\u011fini, yap\u0131lan i\u015flemde i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 esasl\u0131 bir de\u011fi\u015fiklik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak davan\u0131n reddini istedi.<\/p>\n
\n\tYerel mahkeme “ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k ispatlanamad\u0131” demi\u015fti<\/p>\n
\n\tDavay\u0131 inceleyen \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 talebini kabul ederken, ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k ve manevi tazminat taleplerini reddetti. Mahkeme gerek\u00e7esinde, ikiz gebeli\u011fin getirdi\u011fi stres ve g\u00f6revin mesuliyeti g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, iddia edilen eylemlerle sa\u011fl\u0131k sorunlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n koptu\u011fu ve sistematik bezdirmenin somut delillerle ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtildi.<\/p>\n
\n\tKarara yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince esastan reddedilmesi \u00fczerine dosya Yarg\u0131tay’a ta\u015f\u0131nd\u0131.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc i\u015fverende<\/p>\n
\n\tTemyiz incelemesini tamamlayan Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi, yerel mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu. Dairenin emsal niteli\u011findeki karar\u0131nda, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 5’inci maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen “E\u015fit Davranma \u0130lkesi”ne dikkat \u00e7ekildi.<\/p>\n
\n\tKararda, davac\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fum iznine ayr\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan yerine ba\u015fka bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde ise uzmanl\u0131k alan\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki bir g\u00f6revin teklif edildi\u011fi ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n bu durumu kan\u0131tlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurguland\u0131.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u0130\u015f Kanunu uyar\u0131nca i\u015f\u00e7inin ihlal ihtimalini g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bi\u00e7imde ortaya koydu\u011fu hallerde ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn i\u015fverene ge\u00e7ti\u011fi hat\u0131rlat\u0131lan kararda, \u015fu ifadelere yer verildi:<\/p>\n
\n\t“Davac\u0131, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 5’inci maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca bir ihlalin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ihtimalini g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bi\u00e7imde g\u00f6steren bir durumu ortaya koymu\u015ftur. Bu durumda, b\u00f6yle bir ihlalin mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat y\u00fck\u00fc \u00fczerinde olan i\u015fverenin; davac\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fum \u00f6ncesindeki konumunun ve g\u00f6revinin do\u011fum sonras\u0131nda hangi sebeplerle de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fini, davac\u0131ya farkl\u0131 muamele yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiren nedenleri somut olgularla ortaya koyamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k tazminat\u0131 talebinin kabul\u00fc gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ile reddi hatal\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.”<\/p>\n
\n\tBozma karar\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan dosya, yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmek \u00fczere yerel mahkemeye g\u00f6nderildi.<\/p>\n