Supreme Court: "Dismissal of Professor Who Repeated Sexual Harassment Remarks and Committed Molestation Is Justified"... Forced Kiss on the Back of the Hand

"Abuse and Deviation of Disciplinary Discretion" Judgment Overturned in Second Trial
'Disciplinary Sanction Rules for Educational Public Officials' Also Serve as Reference Standards for Private School Teacher Discipline

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has ruled that the dismissal of a professor who repeatedly made sexually harassing remarks and committed molestation against female students was justified.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 27th that it overturned the appellate court's ruling, which had ruled in favor of Professor A from a private university who filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the decision of the Teacher Appeal Review Committee that upheld the school's dismissal order, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.

Professor A was dismissed in February 2019 for repeatedly making misogynistic remarks during class and sexually harassing or molesting female students.

According to student testimonies, Professor A, who was a Japanese language department professor, made sexually harassing remarks during the first semester of 2017, such as "You wear a short skirt, so men must like you. You will get married soon," "I like red like you. Your lip color," and "Women are beautiful only if their thighs are close together. You have no charm."

He also asked female students during class if they planned to have children after marriage, saying things like "Have six kids," and "You need to gain weight if you want to have children."

In May 2015, during practice time for a sports day where students gathered, he asked one female student, "Why do your eyes look so unnatural? Did you do something to your eyes?" and told another student, "Wearing such see-through clothes makes your legs look pretty as they sway."

Additionally, during class in 2017, Professor A said, "Our country ended up like this because a woman was president. This is why women are a problem," and during the academic society president election period in 2017, he made misogynistic remarks such as "What kind of academic society president can a woman be?" in front of many students.

Meanwhile, in the first semester of 2016, Professor A briefly touched a female student's waist after stroking her head in the hallway, and during class, after shaking hands with a female student as a foreign-style greeting, he demanded she kiss the back of his hand; when the student refused, he stopped the class for a while, causing the victim to feel insulted and sexually humiliated.

In March 2018, Japanese language department students reported Professor A to the university's Gender Equality Center for misogynistic and sexually harassing remarks and sexual molestation. Professor A publicly apologized to the entire Japanese language department in April of the same year.

However, students reported Professor A again to the university's Academic Affairs Office in June of the same year and filed a complaint with the National Petition Office in August.

After an investigation by the university's Gender Equality Center, the Faculty Personnel Committee submitted a disciplinary recommendation for Professor A in November 2018, and the university president requested disciplinary action from the university foundation.

The university foundation, after a board meeting, requested disciplinary action from the Faculty Disciplinary Committee, which, after five meetings, resolved to dismiss Professor A in February 2019.

Professor A filed an appeal with the Teacher Appeal Review Committee in March 2019 seeking cancellation of the dismissal, but the committee dismissed the appeal, stating that "all disciplinary reasons are recognized and the disciplinary measure is appropriate," leading Professor A to file a lawsuit.

The first trial court ruled that the dismissal was justified, recognizing all disciplinary reasons and finding the measure not excessively severe compared to the misconduct.

However, the second trial court acknowledged "all factual circumstances underlying the disciplinary reasons" but ruled that "the degree of misconduct is not severe enough to expel the plaintiff from the university and deprive him of his status as a researcher and educator," overturning the first trial's ruling and ordering the cancellation of the Teacher Appeal Review Committee's decision that found no problem with the dismissal.

The second trial court concluded that "this dismissal significantly lacks social reasonableness and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion in disciplinary measures."

The court noted that Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the 'Private School Teacher Disciplinary Rules,' enacted under the revised Private School Act and its enforcement decree in 2019, applies the disciplinary standards set forth in the Rules on Disciplinary Measures for Educational Officials to private school teachers but stated that these rules do not apply to this dismissal case because the supplementary provisions specify that the revised law applies only to disciplinary cases requested after its enforcement.

Furthermore, the court reasoned that even if the old Rules on Disciplinary Measures for Educational Officials, which were in effect at the time of this dismissal, could be applied, sexual harassment cases involving "severe misconduct and gross negligence or minor misconduct with intent" are grounds for dismissal or expulsion, and sexual violence is grounds for dismissal. Cases involving "severe misconduct with slight negligence or minor misconduct with gross negligence" are grounds for demotion or suspension for sexual harassment and dismissal or expulsion for sexual violence. Since Professor A's case could be seen as minor misconduct with gross negligence, the dismissal was excessive.

However, the Supreme Court found problems with the second trial court's judgment.

The court stated, like the second trial, that "the disciplinary standards set forth in the Rules on Disciplinary Measures for Educational Officials do not apply to this dismissal."

But the court emphasized that "the severity of disciplinary measures for private school teachers is generally entrusted to the discretion of the disciplinary authority, and disciplinary actions are only illegal if they significantly lack social reasonableness," adding, "Therefore, when the Private School Teacher Disciplinary Committee determines disciplinary measures and the Teacher Appeal Review Committee assesses the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, it is entirely possible to consider or at least take into account the rules applied to educational officials in public schools."

It further stated, "Even if the Private School Teacher Disciplinary Committee did not directly apply these rules in the disciplinary decision but considered them as one of the reference materials, the disciplinary action does not immediately constitute an abuse or excess of discretion simply because these rules are not applicable or directly enforceable."

Since the severity of disciplinary actions against private school teachers is generally entrusted to the discretion of the disciplinary authority, it is entirely possible for the Private School Teacher Disciplinary Committee to consider the 'Rules on Disciplinary Measures for Educational Officials' applied to public school teachers or to consider parity with disciplinary actions against educational officials when determining disciplinary severity or when the Teacher Appeal Review Committee assesses the appropriateness of disciplinary severity. In conclusion, merely considering rules that cannot be directly applied according to the supplementary provisions does not immediately constitute an abuse or excess of discretion in disciplinary actions.

The court concluded that "this dismissal does not significantly lack social reasonableness or constitute an abuse of discretion in disciplinary severity." for the following reasons:

First, the court stated, "The plaintiff holds the position of a university professor, which requires a high level of professional ethics."

It pointed out, "The plaintiff's misogynistic remarks and sexual harassment, which were recognized as disciplinary reasons, were committed repeatedly in front of many students during lectures over a long period, unrelated to the lecture content, and many remarks contained sexual intent or evoked sexual imagery."

It added, "The forced molestation also occurred in public places such as classrooms and hallways, where the plaintiff's hand that stroked the victim's head moved down to her waist, and despite the victim's clear refusal, the plaintiff forcibly held the victim's hand, kissed his own hand, demanded the victim do the same, and when the victim refused, stared at her and stopped the class, effectively coercing the act."

The court noted, "Despite continuous objections from students who attended the plaintiff's classes through course evaluations regarding misogynistic remarks, sexual harassment, personal attacks, and physical contact, the plaintiff repeatedly committed such misconduct," and "Considering the period, circumstances, and content of the misconduct, the plaintiff's misconduct cannot be considered minor."

It further stated, "If the plaintiff, who has damaged trust as a teacher, were to return to the classroom, it is difficult to conclude that students encountering this situation in the educational field would not be hindered in exercising their fundamental right to education as stipulated in Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution."

Finally, the court said, "Even considering the disciplinary standards in the appendix of these rules, the plaintiff's sexual harassment can be evaluated as intentional or, even if due to gross negligence, as severe misconduct, and forced molestation is an intentional act warranting dismissal or expulsion; therefore, this dismissal is not harsher than disciplinary actions against educational officials."

It added, "Nevertheless, the appellate court judged that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion and that the defendant's appeal decision was illegal based solely on the circumstances mentioned, which is a legal error affecting the judgment by misunderstanding the law on abuse of discretion in disciplinary actions against private school teachers," explaining the reason for overturning and remanding the case.

A Supreme Court official said, "Since this ruling presents standards for judging abuse or excess of discretion in disciplinary actions against private school teachers, it is expected to be helpful for future practical operations."

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