Court: Dismissal of Security Guard Repeatedly Committing 'Workplace Harassment' Is Justified... Told Female Junior, "Seeing Your Face Makes Me Want to Vomit"

Seoul Administrative Court, Yangjae-dong, Seoul.
Photo by Seoul Administrative Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A court ruling has upheld the dismissal of a security guard who repeatedly engaged in 'workplace harassment,' including issuing unfair work orders and making derogatory remarks about appearance to junior colleagues.

On the 14th, according to the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 2 (then presiding judge Lee Jeong-min), in a lawsuit filed by Lee Mo, a former security guard of Seoul City, against the Mayor of Seoul seeking to cancel his dismissal, the court dismissed Lee's claim, ruling against the plaintiff. Lee was also ordered to bear all litigation costs.

Lee, who passed the Seoul City security guard recruitment exam in May 2015 and was appointed in June of the same year, worked in the general operations team of a certain school from December 2017. Due to frequent disputes with colleagues and failure to diligently follow service instructions, he received a disciplinary penalty of a one-month salary reduction in May 2019.

Lee filed a lawsuit in July of the same year to cancel the disciplinary action but the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed his claim in July 2020. Lee appealed, but the Seoul High Court rejected the appeal in May 2021, and he did not file a further appeal, making the ruling final.

Meanwhile, during the ongoing disciplinary cancellation lawsuit, Lee was transferred to work at a certain hospital from June 2019. Within less than three months of starting work, reports of 'workplace harassment' against Lee by junior security guards and others were filed.

The reports stated that Lee, who had seniority of over four years or was 5 to over 12 years older than the juniors, abused his superior position by issuing unfair work orders not only to juniors but also to superiors, and repeatedly made remarks that could cause shame or sexual humiliation.

Specific cases recognized as disciplinary reasons include Lee sending continuous text messages for about two months to junior security guard A, criticizing A's behavior and work status; visiting A during night shifts to take photos and monitor him; prohibiting A from using the break room during early morning breaks; and sending text messages stating that A appeared to be 'acting like a mentally ill person and not in a normal state,' causing severe humiliation.

On the evening of September 20, 2019, after handing over duties to A, Lee was seen taking photos of A. When A asked Lee not to take photos, Lee replied, "Don't talk nonsense. I didn't take any photos," and then left work. During the trial, hospital CCTV footage showing Lee taking photos of A was revealed.

A sent an email to Lee stating, "I will manage my behavior myself, so please do not worry unnecessarily. Due to continuous unnecessary worries, I am afraid and scared to come to work not only on working days but also on days off," but Lee's abuse continued, according to investigations.

On July 29, 2019, Lee had a dispute with junior female security guard B over a leave request. When B sent a text message saying, "I do not want to have personal conversations via text outside of work. If you have something to say, please say it face to face. I am currently under personal and mental stress. Please limit texts to work-related matters only. Sorry," Lee replied, "I feel like vomiting if I talk face to face, so no. You also don't do personal stuff via text or phone! I am also very stressed because of you."

Lee's abusive behavior was no exception toward C, the security guard team leader.

From July 22 to August 15, 2019, Lee repeatedly sent emails containing unfair work-related content and extreme expressions to C.

On August 14, 2019, C requested via email, "Please stop sending emails from now on. I earnestly ask you. I will not avoid conversations. Please do not use email. Due to your emails and texts, all staff are experiencing stress unrelated to work. After this reply email, I will listen to all matters verbally."

However, the next day, Lee sent another email to C saying, "Talking with the team leader is tiring and stressful. (It's funny that you told me to use informal speech before, but now you want honorifics.) I will treat you as a team leader with honorifics as you want (for reference, there is a 4 years, 2 weeks, and 2 days and 6 years age difference between us). Please treat the staff properly. Hearing your face and voice stresses me out and drives me crazy."

The Seoul City Citizens' Human Rights Violation Relief Committee, which investigated the 'workplace harassment' report, judged in December 2019 that Lee's actions worsened the victims' work environment and caused mental distress, constituting 'workplace harassment' prohibited under Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act, and issued a corrective recommendation.

Subsequently, the Seoul City Human Rights Officer notified the Seoul City Audit Committee of the corrective recommendation in January 2020. After additional investigations, the Audit Committee reported in April of the same year, recommending severe disciplinary action against Lee to Seoul City.

Ultimately, the Seoul City Security Guard Disciplinary Committee requested disciplinary action against Lee. In July 2020, the committee recognized the disciplinary reasons and resolved to dismiss Lee for violating Article 5-2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Security Guard Act (conduct damaging dignity).

Lee filed a lawsuit opposing the dismissal, arguing in court that his actions were expressions of opinion reasonably made among colleagues or emotional conflicts arising from mutual feelings, not intentional acts to harass victims.

He also claimed that even if some disciplinary reasons were recognized, his actions did not meet the criteria of 'serious misconduct with intent' stipulated as grounds for dismissal under the 'Seoul Metropolitan Government Local Public Officials Disciplinary Regulations,' and thus the dismissal was an abuse of discretion.

The court rejected all of Lee's claims that he did not intend to harass the victims and concluded that there was intentional workplace harassment constituting disciplinary grounds.

Regarding Lee's text message to female junior B saying, "I feel like vomiting if I talk face to face," Lee claimed it was an expression of his physical condition feeling upset and stressed before coming to work.

However, the court judged, "Considering the context, it is clear that this expression disparages B's appearance, and based on experience, it can be presumed that B felt shame and humiliation upon receiving it."

Regarding Lee's behavior toward C, the court pointed out, "The plaintiff ignored the team leader's authority and used his superior position or relationship at work to issue unfair work orders to team leader C, which exceeded the appropriate scope of work, causing mental distress and worsening the work environment."

Regarding Lee's claim that the dismissal was excessive and an abuse of discretion, the court stated, "Among the security guards working at the hospital, all except the plaintiff became victims of the 'workplace harassment' disciplinary reasons. Despite victims expressing discomfort and requesting cessation of Lee's behavior via emails and texts, Lee ignored these and continued misconduct for a considerable period even after being reported to the Seoul City Human Rights Center."

"Victims testified that they were 'afraid and distressed to come to work,' 'felt fear and worry,' and 'were stressed' due to Lee's misconduct. Considering the nature and degree of Lee's illegal acts and the humiliation or embarrassment the victims likely felt, Lee's misconduct is not minor."

The court also cited Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Local Public Officials Disciplinary Regulations, which states that if a person who has received disciplinary action commits misconduct within the promotion restriction period under Article 34 of the Local Public Officials Appointment Decree, the disciplinary committee may impose a penalty two levels higher than the previous one.

"Since the plaintiff received a one-month salary reduction on May 1, 2019, disciplinary action two levels higher can be imposed for misconduct committed within 12 months after the execution of that penalty," the court said, concluding that "the dismissal of the plaintiff falls within the disciplinary standards prescribed by relevant laws, and there are no special circumstances indicating the unreasonableness of these standards."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Since the plaintiff committed similar misconduct within less than four months after the previous disciplinary action, the blameworthiness is high," adding, "Although the dismissal is a severe penalty depriving the plaintiff of his security guard status, the disadvantages caused by this penalty cannot be considered greater than the public interest in establishing discipline among security guards, enhancing public trust, and ensuring sincere and fair job performance."

Lee did not appeal, and this ruling became final.

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