Supreme Court Confirms Loss of Former Jeju National University Hospital Female Professor's Lawsuit Against Anti-Corruption Commission Over 'Employee Assault' Controversy

Dr. A (female), a former physician at Jeju National University Hospital who sparked controversy when a video of her assaulting physical therapists and other staff in 2018 was released, filed a lawsuit against the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ACRC) but ultimately lost the case.

Dr. A claimed that the personnel actions taken against her were retaliatory measures due to whistleblowing and requested the cancellation of the ACRC's decision to dismiss her protection request. However, the court found it clear that the personnel actions against Dr. A were not related to her whistleblowing.

A screenshot of Mr. A's video released through media reports on November 27, 2018.

According to the legal community on the 10th, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Jo Jae-yeon) upheld the lower court's ruling that dismissed Dr. A's appeal in the final trial of her lawsuit against the ACRC to cancel the dismissal of her protection request.

The court stated, "The lower court found that the request to relieve the plaintiff from concurrent duties was made independently of the plaintiff's whistleblowing, and even without the plaintiff's reports, there were clear reasons to impose the adverse measures. Therefore, the presumption of causation under Article 23 of the Whistleblower Protection Act was overturned." It added, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that it did not violate the rules of logic and experience by failing to conduct necessary hearings, nor did it exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence or misinterpret the law regarding the presumption and reversal of causation under Article 23 of the Whistleblower Protection Act," explaining the reason for dismissing the appeal.

Article 22 of the Whistleblower Protection Act (Application for Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures) allows whistleblowers to apply to the ACRC for prohibition of disadvantageous measures if there is a clear risk of such measures due to whistleblowing. Upon receiving such an application, the ACRC must promptly investigate and, if justified, recommend that those intending to impose disadvantageous measures refrain from doing so.

Article 23 of the same law (Presumption of Disadvantageous Measures) stipulates that disadvantageous measures are presumed if: ▲ attempts are made to identify whistleblowers or obstruct whistleblowing or force cancellation of whistleblowing; ▲ disadvantageous measures are taken within two years after whistleblowing; ▲ disadvantageous measures are taken despite recommendations to prohibit them; or ▲ whistleblowers apply for protection measures to the commission or file lawsuits for restoration after whistleblowing under this law.

Dr. A was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at Jeju National University College of Medicine in 2009 and, after obtaining permission for concurrent duties, worked in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at Jeju National University Hospital.

In April 2018, she was promoted to professor.

However, in a joint labor-management campaign survey conducted in July of the same year to eradicate power harassment, verbal abuse, assault, and sexual harassment, many responses indicated that Dr. A had continuously verbally abused and assaulted staff in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine.

On September 27, 2018, occupational therapists belonging to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine formally filed a grievance complaint stating that since 2016, they had been subjected to assault, verbal abuse, and abuse of authority by Dr. A.

The hospital's special personnel committee reviewed a proposal to request the university president to relieve Dr. A from concurrent duties at Jeju National University Hospital in December of the same year but rejected it. During the explanation process, Dr. A reported that physical therapists sold personal electrical therapy pads, which are medical devices, to patients without registering as medical device sellers.

Subsequently, in January 2019, Dr. A filed a criminal complaint with Jeju Police Station against the hospital's physical therapists and occupational therapists for violations of the National Health Protection Act, fraud, Medical Device Act, and Medical Service Act.

Meanwhile, the president of Jeju National University disciplined Dr. A with a three-month suspension in February 2019 after the disciplinary committee's resolution based on the occupational therapists' grievance complaints.

During the suspension period, in April 2019, two residents in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine filed grievance complaints with the hospital, alleging that Dr. A had forced residents to obtain and submit petitions from patients or guardians to use as favorable evidence regarding the complaints, frequently contacted residents outside working hours with personal instructions unrelated to work, verbally abused and assaulted residents, and ordered unauthorized absences from the workplace during work hours under the pretext of gatherings or outings.

On November 5, 2019, the hospital's special personnel committee resolved to request Dr. A's relief from concurrent duties based on violations of the duty to maintain dignity and sincerity, including ▲ ordering or forcing improper defense activities, ▲ private instructions and frequent contacts outside work hours to residents, ▲ verbal abuse, insults, and assault against residents and occupational therapists, ▲ ordering unauthorized absences from the workplace and coercing false statements related to residents, and ▲ attempts to conceal related videos. The then hospital director requested the university president to relieve Dr. A from concurrent duties on November 11 of the same year.

Additionally, the hospital director issued a separation order on November 6, 2019, against Dr. A, citing requests from affected residents to separate them from Dr. A. The order included ▲ exclusion from assignment as attending physician for inpatients, ▲ restriction from participating in meetings concerning rehabilitation medicine residents, and ▲ prohibition of contacting residents against their will.

A poster related to Mr. A posted by the Jeju Regional Headquarters of the National Public Transport Labor Union Medical Solidarity Headquarters on November 26, 2018.

On November 27, 2018, a video showing Dr. A pinching therapists' sides and stepping on their feet was released through media reports, causing a significant uproar.

Dr. A claimed that the hospital's special personnel committee violated the whistleblower protection law's confidentiality obligation by leaking her report to the therapists, who maliciously edited and distributed the video online, causing her mental harm. She also alleged that the hospital director pressured her to withdraw the complaints, encouraged her to resign, spread false information leading to collective ostracism by most hospital staff, and that the hospital's organizational interference, including the separation order and the request for relief from concurrent duties, constituted adverse measures due to her whistleblowing. Consequently, on December 3, 2019, she applied for restoration and other protective measures under the Whistleblower Protection Act against the hospital and its director.

She also filed an application with the ACRC for prohibition of disadvantageous measures, arguing that the university president was clearly likely to take relief from concurrent duties soon.

However, on May 25, 2020, the ACRC dismissed Dr. A's protection request, acknowledging that her report qualified as whistleblowing and that the hospital's request for relief from concurrent duties was an adverse measure but found no causal relationship between the request and her whistleblowing. The ACRC did not make any decision regarding her application for prohibition of disadvantageous measures.

Dr. A filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the ACRC's decision.

In court, Dr. A argued that the ACRC only judged the relief from concurrent duties among the various protective measures she requested and failed to decide on the other reasons, constituting procedural illegality.

She also claimed that the ACRC violated the mandated complaint processing period set by the Enforcement Decree of the Whistleblower Protection Act (processing within 60 days of receipt, extendable by 60 days) by making a decision more than five months after the application was received.

Furthermore, Dr. A asserted that the reasons for the request to relieve her from concurrent duties were all untrue and that conflicts with the therapists arose as she pointed out their misconduct and attempted improvements, which led to the grievance complaints. She argued that there was a causal relationship between her whistleblowing and the request for relief from concurrent duties, and the ACRC's failure to recognize this was substantively illegal.

The first trial court ruled in favor of Dr. A.

The court pointed out, "It is clear that the plaintiff filed both the protection request and the application for prohibition of disadvantageous measures, yet the defendant only dismissed the protection request and made no decision on the prohibition application. Such omission constitutes a procedural defect in this decision."

The court also added, "Moreover, the defendant arbitrarily narrowed the scope and subject of the review in deciding the protection request."

However, the outcome was reversed in the second trial.

Regarding the procedural defect claim, the court ruled, "There is no basis to require that decisions on applications for prohibition of disadvantageous measures and protection requests must be made in a single decision. Therefore, even if the defendant dismissed only the protection request in this decision, it cannot be considered procedurally illegal."

The court further stated, "Even if the alleged disadvantageous measures correspond to those under the Whistleblower Protection Act, the defendant (ACRC) can make additional decisions, so the lack of explicit judgment on other application reasons does not constitute procedural illegality in this decision." It added, "It is contradictory to claim that dismissing the protection request is illegal because the prohibition application was not judged, while asserting that the two applications are separate."

Regarding the claim of violation due to failure to comply with the processing period, the court concluded, "The processing period for protection requests is intended to ensure prompt handling, and the related provisions are advisory rather than mandatory. Therefore, even if the defendant made the decision after the period, this alone does not render the decision illegal."

The court also rejected the substantive defect claim, stating that the request to relieve Dr. A from concurrent duties was due to grievance complaints about her assault and power harassment, not her whistleblowing.

The court explained, "The request to relieve the plaintiff from concurrent duties was made independently of her whistleblowing, and there are clear reasons for the adverse measures even without her reports. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the presumption of causation under Article 23 of the Whistleblower Protection Act has been overturned."

Dr. A appealed again, but the Supreme Court also found the second trial's conclusion appropriate.

The court stated, "Applications for prohibition of disadvantageous measures and protection requests are separate and independent, and each reason claimed by the applicant for protection requests should be regarded as multiple protection requests. This applies even when both applications are made in a single application form and when there are multiple reasons for protection requests."

It continued, "Therefore, even if the defendant dismissed only the protection request in this decision, it cannot be considered procedurally illegal, and the lower court's judgment is acceptable."

The court further noted, "If it is clear that the adverse measures were not due to whistleblowing but rather due to other distinct reasons, and this is proven by the defendant (ACRC), the presumption of causation under the Whistleblower Protection Act is overturned."

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