16 May 2025

As the Hrant Dink Foundation, we consider it a responsibility to share with the public the questions directed at us and our responses regarding the compensation lawsuit lodged against our foundation by our former employee, Caner Gönder, on the grounds of “unfair termination,” and the smear campaign he subsequently initiated against us. Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing court process, what matters most to us is accountability toward society.

1. What position did Caner Gönder hold at the Foundation, and for what reason was his 18-month employment contract terminated?
Caner Gönder was employed as a trainer for inclusive language workshops. In these workshops, we expect trainers to have skills in identifying hate speech, understanding concepts related to discrimination as well as facilitation skills. Over a six-month period, we provided him with resources and training in these areas, allowed him to observe workshops multiple times, and carried out pilot training. However, his performance in the pilot trainings for inclusive language workshops was found to be inadequate.
He received both verbal and written feedback following these trials. Despite this feedback, his discourse and attitude on topics such as minority rights and sexism were found to be inconsistent with the values and stance of our foundation. His insistence on imposing certain views on workshop participants and colleagues, his tone, language, and harsh demeanor further indicated a lack of facilitation skills. For these reasons, we were compelled to terminate his employment contract before its full term.

2. Why was he dismissed? What happened?
We want to emphasize that the role he was hired for pertained to "Inclusive Language," and he was not a suitable fit for that position. We refrain from commenting in detail on an ongoing legal case or discussing former employees' issues in public. However, we will say this much: due to his use of – and insistence that they were acceptable – two specific expressions, one “homophobic” and the other “religiously discriminatory,” showing his poor understanding of what constitutes hate speech, coupled with his angry attitude towards colleagues, we had to make this decision. The language he is currently using and spreading on social media further confirms our assessment regarding his lack of qualifications as an inclusive language trainer.

3. What exactly is the subject of the lawsuit? Does it include issues such as working conditions or mistreatment?

The lawsuit filed by Caner Gönder is not about reinstatement, or claims for wages, severance, notice pay, overtime, annual leave, discrimination compensation, mobbing, or labor exploitation. The lawsuit is strictly based on the allegation of unfair termination and concerns claims for the remaining duration of the contract and compensation for unjust dismissal. The allegations he is putting forth in the smear campaign are not related to the merits of claim.
The lawsuit relates specifically to the termination of his employment contract before its termination date. In other words, it is not about any “violation of rights” during the 6 months he worked, but rather a substantial compensation claim for the 12 months he did not work. His social media claims regarding working conditions, which are unrelated to the lawsuit, do not reflect the truth. Unfortunately, the issue is being framed as labor exploitation in an attempt to appeal to society’s legitimate sensitivities and to spread disinformation. We reserve our legal rights in this matter.

4. Was feedback given to Caner Gönder regarding the reasons for his dismissal?

Absolutely. As with every candidate trainer hired to provide training at the foundation, multiple pilots were conducted with him. Following these sessions, he received both verbal and written feedback from the team. These feedbacks focused on the workshop’s conceptual content, identifying hate speech, and trainer competence in line with the foundation's values.
Despite positive, constructive, and supportive efforts by colleagues and supervisors to make the workshops productive, he continued to be dismissive and condescending toward team members, remained closed to criticism, and maintained an attitude suggesting he knew best. Due to this behavior, and because it was not feasible to continue the remaining 12 months of his employment under such conditions, his employment contract was terminated on 08.12.2023, as had previously been notified to him in writing.

5. Why wasn’t he dismissed during the 2-month probation period?

We respected his intention to improve and change in response to the feedback and evaluation we provided. We trusted that he would make progress during internal training even after the probation period. Due to fluctuations in his behavior, the trial period was exceeded.
Contrary to his claims, the main reason for not ending his contract within the two month probation period is the foundation’s reluctance to terminate any employee and its adamance to stand side by side with employers. Dismissing an employee is never easy for the Hrant Dink Foundation. However, in some cases, justified grounds can arise at any point in the employment process. Unfortunately, in his case, we were left with no other option. It is clear that he was given sufficient—and even excessive—opportunity.

6. Why was the dismissal reported with Social Security Code "Code 42"?

He was hired to conduct inclusive language workshops. Although he claimed to possess the necessary qualifications, we repeatedly assessed and documented that he lacked them. Therefore, his contract was lawfully terminated under Code 42, which refers to: “The employee claimed to have the qualifications or conditions essential to the employment contract at the time it was signed, despite not actually possessing them.”

7. Why was Caner Gönder’s reported request to work in a different position within the Foundation not fulfilled?

Like most NGOs, the Hrant Dink Foundation operates on a project basis. Team members are hired based on the specific expertise required by each project, and they work for the duration of that project. We have very few permanent staff. Each project requires different qualifications, and positions are determined based on project needs. At the time, there was no available position that matched his other skills apart from the trainer role in the project for which Caner Gönder already worked. Furthermore,at times, when a staff member has unresolved issues with the team, it can create both practical and emotional burdens for other colleagues and make the working environment more difficult.

8. Does being dismissed under Code 42 mean a person can never find another job?

No, that is not true. We terminated his employment under this code solely because he did not meet the qualifications required for the inclusive language workshops we conduct. Being dismissed under Code 42 does not constitute a judgment about all of a person's abilities.
Code 42 (Article 4857/25/II-a) refers to: “An employee misrepresenting or falsely claiming to possess the qualifications or conditions required for a fundamental aspect of the employment contract.” Gönder was dismissed under this code because he claimed to have the necessary “qualifications…for a fundamental part of the job”, which he did not. He still claims to be qualified in inclusive language training. We claim that he was justly terminated because he did not possess these qualifications.
Contrary to Gönder’s claim, disgraceful and ignominious dismissal codes include:
Code 43: Making defamatory or dishonorable statements or accusations against the employer or their family;
Code 44: Sexual harassment of another employee;
Code 46: Breach of trust, theft, or disclosing trade secrets.

9. Is it true that he cannot receive unemployment benefits because of Code 42?

As required by law and after consulting our legal counsel, his termination was filed using the appropriate code that matched the reason for his dismissal.
Unemployment benefits are generally available for those whose contracts end under Code 5 (“End of fixed-term employment contract”) provided other conditions are met—such as having worked and paid social security premiums for at least 600 days in the last three years. Gönder worked at our institution for 173 days, and we do not have knowledge of his prior employment history to determine whether he met the other conditions for receiving unemployment benefits.

10. Why did you appeal the court ruling dated 5 November 2024? Why are you not complying with the compensation ruling issued by the lower court?

The legal process is ongoing, and no final verdict has been issued. Would the Hrant Dink Foundation ever have the luxury of not complying with a finalized judgment? Certainly not.
Due to an issue with the electronic notification (e-tebligat) system, we were informed of the trial before the lower court late. Contrary to Caner Gönder’s claims, we were unable to present our defense or the reasons for his dismissal because his legal team objected to our witnesses being heard. A verdict was issued without proper evaluation of our defense or witness testimony. For this reason, we had no choice but to file an appeal.
It is our institutional responsibility to fully exercise our legal rights in a case where we believe we are right. Moreover, even if we had fully presented our defense, appealing a decision is a legitimate right of any individual or institution, and for a non-profit organization with limited resources like ours, it is also a responsibility.

11. Why did the electronic notification not reach you? It’s claimed that you still attended the court later and presented your defense.

The lawsuit filed by Caner Gönder against our institution on 24 March 2024 was only brought to our attention on 12 July 2024 (after two hearings had already taken place and the plaintiff’s witness had been heard). Upon investigating the reason for this delay, the court clerk informed us that the notice had been sent via e-tebligat (electronic notification). Upon checking the system, we found that an e-tebligat account had been opened on behalf of Rakel Dink, as Chair of the Foundation’s Board, without her knowledge. Moreover, this account included a phone number and email address that have no connection to her.
We do not know who entered this incorrect and suspicious information into the system, and are pursuing the matter with authorities, also considering the possibility of identity theft.
After learning of the case, we attended the third hearing on 26 September 2024 through our attorney. Although it was our first appearance before the court, our request to have our witnesses heard was rejected by the court due to the plaintiff's objection. If he had consented, our witnesses would have been heard and we could have presented our defense. Unfortunately, contrary to his statements, we did not observe this goodwill during the process either.

12. Why did you deposit a guarantee with the enforcement office instead of paying the compensation while appealing?

The amount of compensation requested is very high. We are a non-profit civil society organization. The foundation survives on conditional donations secured through project applications, and we are trustees of these financial resources, to be used solely in compliance with the reasons for which they are donated.
We are not a for-profit organization and contrary to the private sector, we do not have shareholders or accumulated capital, and are accountable for our limited-resources with the responsibility to regularly report on how these resources are used. Ensuring appropriate use of these resources is the responsibility of our Board of Directors.
Therefore, we exercised our legal right to file an appeal by depositing a guarantee with the enforcement office.
The nearly 1 million TL compensation amount in question has been frozen in a bank account through the enforcement file. If the upper court rules in favor of our former employee, the full amount will be paid immediately with accrued interest—ensuring no financial loss on his part.
It is absolutely untrue and unthinkable that the foundation would fail to comply with a court decision under any condition; we are simply exercising our legal rights to ensure a fair trial.

13. How do you respond to allegations that psychologically coercive statements were made during meetings with Caner Gönder and his lawyers?

His lawyers were present during the meeting and witnessed all conversations. Despite this, throughout the course of the ongoing trial, he registered as a participant for all of the foundation’s events and disturbed our team members.
We raised our concerns about this behavior. We explained that while a legal dispute is ongoing with the foundation, confronting team members at events and pressuring them on this matter is distrubing. We asked for respect for the workspace to allow our team to carry out their duties.
We clearly told him that registering for and attending events while the lawsuit was ongoing was unsettling for the team. We also mentioned that it was not appropriate for him to attend events during the ongoing trial and and that he could participate after the case had concluded.
We do not understand how a request to respect team members' space could be interpreted as a threat or pressure.

14.  Do you have any comments about Caner Gönder being detained multiple times during this process?

Unfortunately, after moving his demonstration from in front of the foundation to the site where Hrant Dink was assassinated, we learned he had been detained several times.
A perception has been created on social media that the foundation reported him to the police. However, in response to the police’s repeated questions of “Are you filing a complaint?” our answer has always been “No, we are not.”
We condemn any mistreatment he may have experienced during those detentions.

15. What was the dismissal process like? Was he dismissed unlawfully or unjustly?

During Caner Gönder’s exit process, a standard waiver (not a resignation waiver) generated by our accounting software was prepared and sent by our chartered accountant. He was then asked to sign it along with other standard exit documents (payslip, salary statement, termination notice, etc.). We never forced him to sign a resignation letter, nor was his dismissal under Code 42 related to his refusal to sign such a document, as he has claimed. In fact, he had already been informed in writing on 21 November 2023 and again on 5 December 2023 that if he failed the final pilot workshop, his employment would be terminated. He also signed the written notice.
Given that the termination notice was signed, there would be no point in asking for a resignation letter. On 8 December 2023, the day his employment ended, he tried to alter the release form and insert his own wording. In front of witnesses, he once again had an anger management issue.
Normally, if a termination is communicated 14 days in advance, there is no obligation to pay notice compensation. However, we notified him 18 days in advance and nonetheless opted to pay the compensation.
Unfortunately, this too has become part of the smear campaign to damage the foundation’s reputation, falsely suggesting the existence of unlawful practices at the foundation and creating a grotesque allegation.
Accusing the foundation of improper procedures is a serious allegation. We will evaluate our legal options regarding these false claims. The Hrant Dink Foundation is a regularly audited organization. Every year, we are audited by an independent international body, and our reports are published. Our projects are also audited by donors, and every penny is accounted for transparently.

16. From a perspective of conscience and justice, could your employee have had valid reasons for taking this course of action?

Yes, the length of the appeal process and how statutory interest rates compare to inflation are certainly serious issues and criticism of them is understandable. But these are matters outside of our foundation’s control. In real cases of unjust dismissal, they can indeed create significant hardship.
However, in this case, we believe our reasons for terminating his employment were justified, and we are committed to fully exercising our right to defend ourselves.
Protest and demonstration are of course democratic rights. As long as these actions do not disrupt our staff or cross ethical boundaries, we have no objection.
But in this situation, where a legal case is proceeding through normal channels, and where our former employee will certainly receive what he is entitled to if he wins the case, we fail to see the need for such a campaign.
A legal dispute is being turned into a public smear campaign against our institution. We leave the choice of using provocative language, false claims, and selecting the protest site as the place where Hrant Dink was assassinated rather than the foundation up to the public conscience.
We, of course, reserve all our legal rights. As for those who support this campaign and see no problem with these methods, we leave them to their own conscience.
We firmly believe we had just cause for the dismissal, and we will continue to exercise our right to a fair defense in pursuit of a just outcome.

You may also read our announcement dated April 21, 2025.
You may also read our announcement dated April 17, 2025.