Sexual Harassment and Assault 'Secondary Harm' by Faculty Member... Supreme Court Rules "Dismissal Justified"

1st Trial "Dismissal Justified" → 2nd Trial "Dismissal Not Justified"
Supreme Court "Responsibility Severe Enough to Prevent Continued Employment"

The Supreme Court has ruled that the dismissal of a faculty member who sexually harassed a female colleague and committed secondary harm was justified.

The Supreme Court’s Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced on the 19th that it overturned the lower court ruling, which had ruled in favor of A, who filed a lawsuit against the school foundation claiming the dismissal was invalid, and sent the case back to the Busan High Court.

A, who worked in the Industry-Academia Cooperation Office at a private junior college, was dismissed in June 2018 for reasons including violation of the prohibition of sexual harassment and the duty to maintain dignity. A sexually harassed female employees by boasting about his sexual history, saying things like, "I had sex eight times with a married woman."

He also made statements in front of the victim of a sexual assault incident at the school, saying about the perpetrator, "The person I know is not that kind of person," and when reporters from broadcasting companies came to the victim regarding the sexual assault case, he told the victim, "Why are you making such a big deal out of it?" Furthermore, A was disciplined for deleting the victims’ annual leave without permission, restoring it later, and being involved in hiring irregularities. The school dismissed A, but A filed a lawsuit claiming the dismissal was invalid.

The first trial found no problem with the dismissal, but the appellate court ruled that A did not repeatedly sexually harass and ordered the dismissal decision to be canceled. The appellate court stated, "The remarks causing secondary harm to the sexual assault victim can be seen as a minor misconduct, and the unauthorized deletion of annual leave was restored within a few days," and judged that "the dismissal was invalid as it significantly lost its validity according to social norms and was an abuse of discretion by the disciplinary authority."

However, the Supreme Court found that A’s sexual harassment remarks and secondary harm were intentional, and the dismissal was justified. The court ruled, "The victims suffered considerable mental distress, causing serious fractures in the relationships among employees, and A is responsible to the extent that the employment relationship cannot continue according to social norms."

It added, "Considering various circumstances, the legitimacy of the dismissal cannot be denied," and ruled, "The lower court’s judgment contains an error in the legal principle regarding the abuse of disciplinary discretion, which affected the judgment."

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