In its decision dated 10 February 2026 and numbered 2025/9390 E., 2026/1065 K. (“Decision”), the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal assessed the validity of a voluntary mediation settlement agreement executed on the same day as the termination of the employment relationship.
In the case subject to the Decision, the employee worked for the employer between 14.05.2018 and 04.09.2024. The employment relationship was terminated on 04.09.2024 by the employer, and on the same day, a voluntary mediation application was filed and both the settlement agreement and the final mediation minutes were executed. Under the settlement agreement, the parties agreed on claims relating to severance and notice compensation, salary receivables, transfer fee, premium/bonus payments, bad faith compensation, overtime, weekly rest day work, national and public holiday work, annual paid leave, minimum living allowance, meal and transportation allowance, union compensation, work accidents and related pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, reinstatement, idle time pay, compensation for failure to reinstate, and all other employment-related claims.
The employee requested the annulment of the voluntary mediation settlement agreement, alleging that he suffered from psychological disorders, used medication, was not in a position to make calculations, his financial need was exploited, and he was hastily taken to the mediator’s office by the employer and directed to sign the agreement, and that the employer had promised that all his receivables would be paid and that he would also benefit from unemployment allowance. The First Instance Court accepted the claim and held that the agreement was invalid, on the grounds that the employee had not been given sufficient time to consider the settlement, there was no evidence showing that the mediation request had originated from the employee, the employer failed to prove that the employee had received a reasonable benefit beyond his statutory entitlements, and the employee’s will had been impaired. The Regional Court of Appeal upheld this assessment.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the employer’s appeal and upheld the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision, finding the assessment regarding the invalidity of the voluntary mediation settlement agreement to be in accordance with the law.
The Decision is particularly significant for voluntary mediation processes conducted simultaneously with employment terminations. It provides guidance on whether the mediation process creates a genuine negotiation environment, whether the employee is given sufficient time to assess the settlement, whether the employee has genuine free will in the initiation of the process and the selection of the mediator, and whether the payment made to the employee is reasonable and proportionate.
The key principles set forth in the Decision may be summarized as follows:
- Voluntary mediation processes initiated and completed on the same day as the termination may create validity risks
In the assessment upheld by the Court of Appeal, the fact that the mediation application was filed, and the settlement agreement and final minutes were executed on the same day as the termination, was considered an important indication that the employee had not been given sufficient time to consider the settlement and make a decision.
Accordingly, in voluntary mediation processes conducted at the time of termination or under the pressure of termination, whether the mediation meeting involves genuine negotiations becomes a key factor.
- Mediation should not be used as a merely formal mechanism to prevent employees from filing future claims
The Decision emphasizes that the main purpose of mediation is to resolve an existing dispute through negotiation. Therefore, using mediation solely to prevent the employee from filing future claims, or to formalize termination-related payments and releases through a mediation document, may create validity risks.
In the present case, the courts considered that it had not been proven that the settlement items had previously been genuinely negotiated between the employee and the employer, and concluded that the mediation process had not been conducted in substance.
- The employee must have free will regarding the initiation of the process, the selection of the mediator, and the place of the meeting
The Decision held that the employee had no genuine involvement in the initiation of the mediation process, the selection of the mediator, or the determination of the meeting place. The courts considered that the employee attended the mediation meeting not upon the mediator’s invitation, but as a result of the employer’s direction following the termination.
The courts also took into account witness statements indicating that the same mediator had been used in mediation processes involving other employees whose employment contracts were terminated by the employer. This was considered relevant in assessing whether the voluntary mediation process was conducted independently and based on the employee’s free will.
- The mediator’s duty to inform must be duly fulfilled
The Regional Court of Appeal expressly found that, in the present case, the mediation meetings did not involve genuine negotiations; therefore, it could not be accepted that the mediator had fulfilled the duty to inform the parties regarding the mediation process and its consequences. This assessment shows that, in voluntary mediation processes, the mediator’s duty to inform stands out as an independent validity requirement.
- The payment made to the employee must be reasonable and proportionate
In the present case, despite the employee having more than six years and three months of seniority, the settlement agreement provided for a net payment of TRY 156,058.70. Indeed, according to witness statements, the fact that another employee with only three years of seniority had been paid TRY 162,000.00 concretely demonstrated the disproportionality of the payment made to the claimant. The court found this amount to be significantly disproportionate in light of the employee’s seniority and wage level, and considered the settlement agreement to constitute excessive benefit-taking in respect of the employee, who was in a weaker position vis-à-vis the employer.
In this respect, the Decision shows that the mere fact that a payment has been made under a voluntary mediation settlement agreement is not sufficient. The amount must also be assessed in light of the employee’s statutory entitlements, seniority, wage level, and the circumstances of the specific case.
- Where a mediation settlement functions as a mutual termination arrangement, the employee must receive a reasonable benefit
The First Instance Court noted that the voluntary mediation settlement agreement could be regarded as replacing a mutual termination agreement. However, for a mutual termination proposed by the employer to be valid, the employee must receive a reasonable benefit.
The court concluded that the employer had failed to prove that the employee had received a reasonable benefit beyond his accrued entitlements. This assessment indicates that the reasonable benefit criterion applicable to mutual termination agreements remains relevant where the employment relationship is terminated through voluntary mediation.
- The employee’s health condition and weaker position may be taken into account in the validity assessment
In the case subject to the Decision, the courts took into consideration that the employee had been diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depressive disorder before the termination date, had been using medication, and that a medical opinion had advised against night shift work due to sedation and drowsiness caused by the medication.
Based on medical reports and witness statements, the courts assessed the employee’s ability to understand and make decisions during the process. This was considered relevant in determining whether the employee’s will had been validly formed.
In conclusion, the Decision indicates that, from an employer’s perspective, it is not sufficient for voluntary mediation processes to be conducted merely in form. The process should be based on genuine negotiations, mediation should not be treated, contrary to its purpose, as a mechanism that may be used solely to prevent the employee from filing future claims, the employee’s free will must be protected, sufficient time for consideration should be provided, and the payment must be proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Although each case must be assessed on its own merits, voluntary mediation settlement agreements executed on the same day as the termination and covering broad releases of employment-related claims may carry a significant invalidity risk.
