"Why Conflicting Rulings on Dismissal Over 'Short-Educated' and 'Loser' Insults?"

Ambiguity in Judging 'Discretionary Power Abuse'
Different Interpretations of Rationality in Social Norms
Comprehensive Review Including Past Work Attitudes

#1. Former head of the Human Rights Policy Division at the Ministry of Justice, Mr. A, was dismissed in 2019 after being investigated for making abusive and sexually harassing remarks to employees such as "Those with short educational backgrounds should study more" and "Handsome legal officers are never assigned to our division." Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming the dismissal was unjust, and won consecutively in both the first and second trials.

#2. Former mid-level manager Mr. B at the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service was dismissed in 2017 after verbally abusing subordinates with remarks like "losers." He filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the dismissal, but the outcome differed from Mr. A’s case. The court ruled that the dismissal was lawful, stating that "the misconduct was severe, including statements infringing on personal rights."

It has been revealed that courts have issued differing rulings in lawsuits filed by individuals dismissed for abusive language exceeding appropriate limits in the workplace, exploiting their superior position or relationship. Although these lawsuits are of the same nature, each presiding court has made different judgments regarding the legitimacy of the disciplinary actions. The reason for these divergent rulings lies in the abstract and ambiguous legal definition of whether there has been an abuse or deviation of discretionary authority in disciplinary measures, which serves as the basis for judgment.

In a 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that in determining the illegality of disciplinary actions, "a disciplinary action is considered illegal only when it is clearly unreasonable according to social norms to the extent that it constitutes an abuse of discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority." Regarding dismissal as a disciplinary measure, it held that "it is recognized as justifiable only when there is a responsible reason attributable to the employee to the extent that the employment relationship cannot reasonably continue according to social norms." Whether social norms are interpreted restrictively or broadly inevitably leads to different conclusions.

In the case of employee Mr. C, who said to a colleague at a national university, "I will kill all you bastards," the court took a restrictive view of social norms’ rationality. After being dismissed, Mr. C filed a relief application with the Central Labor Relations Commission, which was rejected, leading him to file a lawsuit. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. In 2017, the Seoul Administrative Court’s 11th Division (Presiding Judge Jang Sun-wook) stated, "Mr. C’s slander and abusive language constitute grounds for disciplinary action," but also ruled that "the dismissal is excessively harsh compared to the nature and degree of the misconduct."

However, legal experts explain that judgments in such lawsuits confirming invalidity of dismissal or similar matters comprehensively consider various factors such as the content and nature of the misconduct constituting disciplinary grounds and past work behavior. For example, private school teacher Mr. D, who was dismissed last year for inappropriate physical contact and verbal abuse toward students, won his lawsuit against the school corporation. Factors considered included his 25 years of service without any prior disciplinary actions and receiving commendations from the Minister of Education for diligent work.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.