A court has ruled that if a boss pushes a new employee to socialize with another older employee, it constitutes workplace sexual harassment.

Even if it was a simple joke, if it is accepted that you felt "sexual humiliation" in a relationship between the top and bottom, you should give alimony.

Seoul Central District Law Civil Appeals Division 8-2 (Chief Judge Lee Won-joong Kim Yang-hoon Yoon Ung-ki) upheld the first instance of a lawsuit filed by female employee A of a major Korean company against her boss B, which was judged to be partially in favor of the plaintiff.

Mr. A, a fourth-month new employee who joined the company in 1, had lunch with three other bosses, including Mr. B, the head of the department next door, the following year.

Mr. B is an executive with 2020 years of service, and he was second to Mr. A.

It started when an attendee asked Mr. A, "Where do you live?"

When Mr. A mentioned his neighborhood, Mr. B mentioned Mr. C, an employee of another department who was not present at the time, and said, "Mr. C also lives there, and the two of them would be a good fit."

Mr. C was an unmarried man about 4 years older than Mr. A.

Later, when asked by Mr. B, "Do you like chicken?", Mr. A replied "I like it", but Mr. B replied, "Mr. C likes chicken too. The two of you will be a good fit."

Mr. A then euphemistically drew the line, "I don't think I like chicken anymore."

But Mr. B didn't stop and said, "That dude has a lot of money. But can't you?" Said.

The case was publicized at the company, but the company separated the two through personnel measures and gave Mr. B a disciplinary action on the third day.

Mr. A sued for damages, claiming that the incident forced him to receive psychiatric treatment and even take a leave of absence.

The Court of Appeal ruled that, like the first instance, Ms. B's remarks constituted sexual harassment and that she should be compensated for her emotional distress.

It was considered that the boss made the boss feel sexually humiliated or disgusted by sexual behavior using his position in the workplace, and that it constituted "sexual harassment in the workplace" prohibited by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

Miss A didn't mind the euphemism of her refusal, and she said something to the effect that a man with a lot of money could have a relationship with a much younger woman regardless of age, personality, environment, appearance, etc.

The court ruled that "considering the circumstances that the conversation did not take place on a completely equal basis and that other employees were present, the defendant's remarks, who are male, were sexual behavior" and that "it can be reasonably assumed that the plaintiff, who is a woman, felt sexually humiliated."

Mr. B protested, "This is just a joke about a male colleague who is an old bachelor, not a sexual comment like a lewd joke," but it was not accepted.

(Photo = Yonhap News)