Korean Air, Which Did Not Discipline 'Workplace Sexual Harassment'... Supreme Court Rules "Must Pay Damages"

Unfair Resignation Processing Without Separate Disciplinary Action

The Supreme Court has ruled that Korean Air must compensate the victim for failing to take appropriate action regarding a sexual assault incident within the company.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Suk-yeon) on the 14th upheld the lower court's partial ruling in favor of plaintiff A, who filed a damages lawsuit against Korean Air. A, who worked at Korean Air, was sexually assaulted by her superior B when she went to report a security incident that occurred during the boarding process in July 2017.

A reported the incident to the company and requested an investigation and disciplinary action against B, but Korean Air concluded the matter by processing B's resignation without any separate disciplinary procedures. Consequently, A filed a damages lawsuit against Korean Air, claiming that "the attempted rape incident was related to the execution of office duties, so the company is liable for compensation," seeking damages in the range of 100 million KRW. The first trial court ruled that the damages A should receive amounted to 50 million KRW, of which Korean Air was ordered to pay 15 million KRW, deducting the 35 million KRW previously paid by B.

However, the court found no illegality in processing B's resignation without subjecting him to disciplinary procedures. The second trial court, however, stated, "The defendant has an obligation to refer B, who committed sexual violence against A, to the disciplinary committee for disciplinary action. Nevertheless, by omitting the disciplinary process and accepting B's resignation letter to process it as a voluntary resignation, it cannot be considered that the necessary measures were taken." Accordingly, it ordered an additional payment of 3 million KRW in consolation damages, increasing the total compensation to 18 million KRW.

The Supreme Court dismissed Korean Air's appeal, stating, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment regarding the handling of the perpetrator of workplace sexual harassment without disciplinary action, the fulfillment of the obligation to hear the victim's opinion, and the legal principles concerning the subjective requirements of the tort," thereby upholding the ruling.

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