The student who wanted to rent a house in the city where he went to continue his higher education was discriminated against. Upon the real estate agent and landlord’s response, “Our house is suitable for family, female students”, the student who went to the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey; He ensured that both the real estate agent, the landlord and the website that published the rental advertisement were penalized.
M.F.K., who won the university he had dreamed of for years, called the real estate agent A.U. after the advertisement he saw on the website.
The real estate agent said that the owner, E.Y., wanted the flat to be rented only to a “female” student.
M.F.K., who could not rent the flat he liked, knocked on the door of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (TİHEK) after claiming that the real estate agent, landlord and the website that published the advertisement discriminated against gender.
They didn’t rent a house as “men”
The student claimed that the real estate agent not renting the flat she wanted to rent on the grounds that it was a “man” constitutes “discrimination” on the basis of gender.
The victim university student noted that he could not communicate with the addressee in writing due to the treatment he faced and that he could not rent the house that was the subject of the announcement, so he was exposed to discrimination.
Real estate agent A.U. He also said that the landlord wanted the male student not to rent his house, and that if necessary, he could meet with the landlord to persuade the male students to rent his house.
The student’s “discrimination” claim was valid
Website officials also reported that they did not interfere with the advertisements.
Hosted by E.Y. However, the agency did not respond.
Listening to the parties, TİHEK found the male student’s claim of discrimination appropriate.
In the decision, which penalized both the real estate agent, the landlord and the website that published the rental advertisement, the following statements were included:
The host did not offer his opinion
“It was seen that the title of the ad reads ‘3+1 clean mezzanine flat suitable for a female student in the family’. According to the applicant’s statement, during the phone conversation between the applicant and his real estate consultant, the addressee AU, the landlord stated that he did not want his house to be rented to a male student, and the statements in the opinion letter presented by the addressee AU. It was understood that he confirmed this situation. Since the landlord addressee E.Y. did not submit his written opinion to our institution, we could not reach a contrary opinion.”
‘he was treated differently because of his gender’
“When the screenshot and other information presented by the applicant in the concrete case are evaluated together with the opinion of the addressee, it is evaluated that the applicant was treated differently because of his gender, not renting a house only because he was a man. In the concrete case, the addressee real estate consultant AU. It is also prohibited to implement the instruction and is regulated as a form of discrimination.”
‘violated’ the ban
“In the application made to our institution, the addressee landlord did not rent the immovable property to the applicant due to the applicant’s gender without any objective justification, and the real estate agent participated in the different treatment by applying a discriminatory instruction. When all these issues are considered together, the applicant was exposed to a discriminatory treatment due to his gender, and therefore equal. It has been concluded that the principle of treatment and the prohibition of discrimination have been violated.
102 thousand lira fine
“It was unanimously decided to impose an administrative fine of 6 thousand TL on the addressee A.U., 6 thousand TL on the landlord addressee E. Y., and 89 thousand 571 TL on the addressee website.”
