Are mobbing and discrimination the same legal concept?
The general concept of mobbing and TİHEK's concept of workplace bullying
Psychological harassment may cover repeated conduct such as targeting an employee, humiliating them systematically, excluding them, belittling them, preventing them from performing their duties or steering them toward leaving the job. Not every serious workplace dispute is mobbing: the nature of the conduct, the pattern of repetition, the effects on how the workplace functions and the case as a whole must be examined. Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 of March 6, 2025 expressly addresses these institutional risks.
Law No. 6701 on the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye, for its part, defines “workplace bullying” (işyerinde yıldırma) as acts committed intentionally, on the basis of the discrimination grounds listed in the same Law, with the aim of driving a person away from, excluding them from, or wearing them down in their job. Accordingly, the scope of a mobbing claim under private law and that of a discrimination-based bullying claim that can be raised before TİHEK are not the same. TİHEK's own information also states that the general concept of mobbing is broader than the concept of workplace bullying in Law No. 6701.
Why is the discrimination ground decisive?
Article 3 of the Law lists the grounds of discrimination as sex, race, color, language, religion, belief, sect, philosophical and political opinion, ethnic origin, wealth, birth, marital status, health status, disability and age. An applicant should not be content with saying only “my manager did not like me” or “I was assigned unfairly”; they must show on which ground the practices were carried out, how the conduct is connected with that ground, and the intent to exclude or bully.
A discrimination claim is not necessarily built on a single explicit insulting sentence. The personnel files of comparable employees, promotion and pay schedules, different treatment despite the same rule, the allocation of duties, leave applications, workplace messages and witness statements may be assessed together. That said, the fact that employees who are not in the same position work in different roles is not discrimination in itself; the situations of the persons compared and the objective justifications must be discussed.
The difference between a single discriminatory act and systematic bullying
A single discriminatory refusal, obstruction of promotion or demeaning act may be the subject of a direct or indirect discrimination review under Law No. 6701. In a claim of workplace bullying, by contrast, it is assessed separately whether the conduct forms an intentional and continuing pattern directed against the targeted person. Subjecting single-act discrimination and mobbing to the same standards of proof and time limits is legally wrong.
Which conduct at work may amount to discrimination-based mobbing?
Bullying on the basis of pregnancy, motherhood and marital status
Excluding an employee from meetings after news of a pregnancy, humiliating her systematically on the ground that she will take leave, depriving her of a promotion opportunity given to others solely because of her sex or pregnancy, and doing all of this with the aim of pushing her out of the workplace may give rise to more than one legal violation. In TİHEK's Decision No. 2021/230 dated September 14, 2021, allegations of workplace bullying connected with pregnancy and the right to leave were examined within the framework of sex discrimination. The outcome of that decision does not mean that every pregnancy dispute will automatically produce the same decision.
Discrimination on the basis of disability and health status
Constantly sending an employee to unsuitable duties without objective necessity despite their documented health condition, failing to provide reasonable accommodation, or belittling them in front of colleagues may, depending on the case, constitute discrimination or psychological harassment. However, arrangements that an employer makes because they are genuinely necessary under health and safety measures cannot always be treated as discrimination either. The specific duties and workplace conditions must be examined.
Age, belief, language and other protected grounds
Facts such as the systematic devaluation of an older employee, exclusion from meetings because of belief, or exposure to different disciplinary treatment because of language or ethnic origin may be discussed within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination. A causal link must be established between the alleged ground of discrimination and the act. A personal disagreement with a manager does not replace that link unless its basis is shown.
The objective justification for management decisions
Where targets, the pay system, hiring, shifts, discipline, transfers and performance evaluation rest on objective criteria, they may be legally defensible. However, selective application of the same rules against only a particular person or protected group, after-the-fact creation of records, or constantly changing justifications can strengthen a discrimination claim.
Which application route suits which legal problem?
| Problem | Initial legal assessment | Typical application or claim |
|---|---|---|
| Bullying based on a ground listed in the Law | Law No. 6701 Articles 2, 3 and 17 | TİHEK review; administrative sanction if the conditions are met |
| Systematic psychological harassment without a discrimination ground | Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 417; Law No. 4857 Art. 24 | Application to the employer, termination for cause, compensation and labor court proceedings |
| Breach of equal treatment under Labor Law Art. 5 | The employment relationship and comparable persons | Claim for discrimination compensation and for rights withheld |
| The specific act constitutes a criminal offense | The relevant Turkish Criminal Code provision | Complaint or criminal report to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) |
| Administrative act concerning public personnel | Law No. 657, the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) and the employee's status | Administrative application and, if the conditions are met, administrative courts |
The relationship between these routes is assessed according to the legal nature of the case. If TİHEK imposes an administrative fine, this does not mean that non-pecuniary damages are automatically paid to the employee. Nor does a labor court decision automatically satisfy the conditions of TİHEK's jurisdiction. In parallel proceedings concerning the same facts, lis pendens, the bar on review and the procedural provisions must also be checked separately.
What must be done before applying to TİHEK?
First, requesting correction of the violation from the relevant party
Under Article 17 of Law No. 6701, the applicant must, as a rule, ask the relevant party to correct the practice they consider contrary to the Law. An application to the Institution may be made once the request is rejected or no reply is given within 30 days. TİHEK's official application page expressly states this condition. Statutory exceptions and the urgency of the specific case must be examined separately; an approach of sending every complaint directly to the Institution may lead to a loss of rights.
The petition requesting correction sent to the employer should clearly state the dates of the events, the persons responsible, the alleged discrimination ground, a concrete comparison of the discriminatory treatment, the measure requested and the address to which the reply is to be sent. The fact that the application was sent and reached the employer should be secured with an appropriate document. If there is a security risk at the workplace, urgent protection options should be considered as well, rather than relying on this procedure alone.
The effect of a TİHEK application on the time limit for filing a lawsuit
Under Article 17(3) of Law No. 6701, an application made to TİHEK within the time limit for filing a lawsuit suspends the time limit for filing a lawsuit that has already begun to run. This is an important consequence expressly regulated by statute. However, which lawsuit's time limit is suspended, the scope of the application and its procedural regularity, and the special application periods of other legal routes must be examined separately in the specific case. In particular, it should not be assumed that the TİHEK procedure automatically suspends in every case the one-month obligation of an employee under job security to apply to mediation, or the time limit for a criminal complaint. When the suspended period starts to run again must also be tracked in light of the notification of the relevant decision and the procedural provisions.
The special order for disputes under Labor Law Article 5
According to TİHEK's official guidance, in discrimination claims under Article 5 of Labor Law No. 4857, an application to the Institution may arise where no sanction decision has been reached after the relevant employment-law complaint procedures have been followed. For this reason, the TİHEK procedure should not be confused with mediation, which is a condition precedent to litigation under employment law, or with any other mandatory stage. Where two separate routes are initiated, it must be checked whether the subject matter of the specific applications and their outcomes affect one another.
Elements the application petition should contain
In addition to identity and contact details, the applicant should state the employer's trade name, the employment relationship, the discrimination ground, the dates of the violations, the request for correction, the reply received and a list of evidence. It must be clearly reasoned why the petition contains not merely an ordinary workplace discontent but a claim of discrimination-based bullying within the meaning of Law No. 6701. The Institution's official e-application channel or its current application forms may be used; the current procedure and the limits on uploading attachments should be checked at the time of application.
How should evidence be prepared?
Groups of documents to be assessed together
A chronology of events, workplace correspondence, emails and messaging, the allocation of duties, performance evaluation tables, disciplinary warnings, camera recordings, witness statements, meeting invitations and payroll records may support a discrimination claim. What matters is not only the existence of the evidence but when, by whom, in what context and by what lawful method it was obtained. The lawfulness of recordings that violate privacy or personal data must be assessed separately.
Choosing the comparison group correctly
For a discrimination claim to be built strongly, comparable employees must be selected in terms of similar duties, seniority, performance criteria or leave entitlement. The employer's defense based on objective job requirements must not be left out of the assessment either. The fact that everyone in the same department does not receive the same salary is not automatically discrimination; the reason behind the difference must be investigated.
Indications and the burden of proof
Under Article 21 of Law No. 6701, once the applicant presents strong indications of the truth of the claim and facts giving rise to a presumption, the other party is required to prove that it did not discriminate. That said, it is not accepted that the burden of proof shifts automatically on a bare abstract statement without any concrete fact being shown. The regime of proof before TİHEK cannot be applied unchanged to every private-law compensation claim before the labor court.
What do TİHEK decisions show?
The conclusion to be drawn from an accepted application
In TİHEK's Decision No. 2021/230 dated September 14, 2021, treatment in working life connected with pregnancy and motherhood rights was examined on the sex ground. The decision shows the importance of establishing the connection between the protected ground and the workplace conduct. It cannot be concluded from it that “every pregnancy-related discussion is mobbing.”
The conclusion to be drawn from an application that was not accepted
In TİHEK's Decision No. 2024/352 dated April 18, 2024, allegations of workplace bullying and victimization on the basis of sex were addressed. The Institution's approach, which investigates the connection with the discrimination ground and the evidence, shows that having standing to apply is not on its own sufficient for a finding of violation on the merits. For this reason, which claim each document submitted to the file supports should be explained separately.
What is the legal outcome of a TİHEK application?
Administrative fines and other measures
If the Institution decides that the prohibition of discrimination has been violated, an administrative sanction may arise under Article 25 of Law No. 6701. The amounts of administrative fines change depending on revaluation. The 2026 amounts should be confirmed separately from TİHEK's official announcement “2026 Administrative Fines”; this article does not assert that any case will result in a fixed fine.
Employee entitlements and compensation are claimed separately
A TİHEK decision does not by itself determine the employee's severance pay (kıdem tazminatı), discrimination compensation, non-pecuniary damages or right to reinstatement. These are subject to separate substantive and procedural conditions. For example, where the employee has terminated the employment contract for cause, severance pay is assessed; where the employer terminated, job security and the time limit for reinstatement must be examined separately. A TİHEK decision may be treated as evidence in these processes; it does not replace the court's assessment.
How is the employer's defense assessed?
Objective performance or restructuring grounds
The employer may argue that the alleged difference in treatment stems from the working arrangement, objective performance criteria, occupational safety requirements or a genuine organizational change. This defense cannot be brushed aside with an abstract reference to “managerial prerogative”; it must be supported by personnel records, concrete criteria, procedures applied to all employees, and dates.
Adverse treatment after a complaint
Punishing an employee for requesting equal treatment or for initiating a review is also a type of violation that must be assessed separately. If a change of duties, obstruction of promotion or exclusion without objective justification occurs immediately after a complaint, evidence should be gathered on causation, timing and comparable persons.
Basic mistakes in the application process
- Assuming that TİHEK has jurisdiction over all matters on the basis of a general mobbing claim alone, without showing a discrimination ground.
- Applying without assessing the condition of first requesting correction from the relevant party, or the relevant private employment-law routes.
- Thinking that an administrative sanction will be paid directly to the employee as pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation.
- Leaving the accounts of the facts in the labor court, TİHEK and criminal applications arising from the same facts inconsistent with one another.
- Publishing or sharing evidence without checking it for date, source and lawfulness.
- Overlooking the provision of Article 17(3) of Law No. 6701 that suspends the time limit for filing a lawsuit; conversely, applying that provision automatically to all mediation or criminal complaint time limits under job security.
Conclusion
Mobbing and discrimination may coexist in the same incident in some files; however, their legal scope and application routes differ. Under Law No. 6701, the protected ground of discrimination, the intent to bully, the nature of the conduct and the application procedure must be established together. Even where that connection is absent, separate legal liability may arise with regard to the protection of the employee's personality and the employer's duty of care. To prevent a loss of rights, the correct authority for the application must be chosen, the evidence must be classified, and each time limit must be tracked within its own legal regime.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can every mobbing incident be taken to TİHEK?
No. A workplace bullying review under Law No. 6701 requires a connection with the grounds of discrimination listed in the Law. The employment-law routes for a general mobbing claim remain available separately.
How is the discrimination ground determined?
Which of sex, health status, disability, age, religion, language and the other grounds listed in the Law is connected with the alleged conduct must be explained with concrete facts and documents.
Is it mandatory to apply to the employer first?
Under Article 17 of Law No. 6701, as a rule the correction of the violation must be requested from the relevant party. An application to TİHEK may be considered after a rejection or 30 days without a reply; statutory exceptions are reserved.
Does TİHEK award non-pecuniary damages for mobbing?
TİHEK's power to impose administrative sanctions and the non-pecuniary damages that an employee may seek from the court are separate legal consequences. An administrative fine is not paid to the employee automatically.
Does a TİHEK decision secure reinstatement?
Not on its own. Reinstatement is assessed within the conditions of job security, the statutory time limits and labor court procedure.
If the employer set the same target for all employees, does that rule out discrimination?
No such conclusion can be drawn on that basis alone. It is examined whether an apparently equal rule places a particular protected group at a disadvantage and whether there is an objective justification.
Is a single act of discrimination counted as mobbing?
A single incident may be the subject of a discrimination review; however, the systematic nature of conduct required for workplace bullying must be discussed separately.
Is a separate lawsuit needed for notice pay and severance pay?
Depending on the specific type of termination, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation and labor court proceedings may be required for employee entitlements; a TİHEK application does not by itself conclude these claims.
Does applying to TİHEK suspend labor court time limits?
Under Article 17(3) of Law No. 6701, an application to the Institution within the time limit for filing a lawsuit suspends the time limit for filing a lawsuit that has begun to run. However, it should not be assumed that this rule automatically suspends special time limits, in particular the application to mediation for reinstatement and criminal complaints; each time limit must be examined separately.
What should I do if my duties were changed after my complaint?
Document the reason for the change of duties, its date, the previous duties and conditions, its application to other employees and its possible connection with the complaint; the special provisions relating to Article 22 of the Labor Law must also be assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6701 and TİHEK's explanations on combating discrimination — Articles 2, 3, 17(2)–(3), 21, 25.
- TİHEK's official application conditions — prior request for correction, the 30-day reply period, the distinction of the employment-law route.
- TİHEK 2026 administrative fines — annual announcement of amounts.
- TİHEK, statement on Circular No. 2025/3 — March 7, 2025.
- TİHEK Prohibition of Discrimination: Decision No. 2021/230 — pregnancy and sex ground, September 14, 2021.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Article 417 — protection of the employee's personality.
- Labor Courts Law No. 7036, Article 3 — mediation as a condition precedent to litigation.