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 admitted that he felt "sexual humiliation" in the relationship between the top and bottom, he must pay alimony.

According to the legal profession today (8th), the Seoul Central District Law's 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 large Korean company against her boss B, which was judged to be a partial victory of the plaintiffs.

Mr. A, a fourth-month new employee who joined the company in 2020, 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 25 years of service, and he was second to Mr. A.

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

Mr. A replied, "I live at the station," and Mr. B replied, "○○ station? Mr. C also lives there. The two of you would be a good fit."

Mr. C was an employee of another department who was not present at the time, and he was an unmarried man about 20 years older than Mr. A.

When asked by Mr. B, "Do you like chicken?", Mr. A said, "I like it".

Mr. B then said, "Mr. C also likes chicken. The two of you will be a good fit."

Mr. A 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 by the company.

The company separated the two through personnel measures and issued a three-day disciplinary action against Mr. B.

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.

Although Mr. A euphemistically expressed his refusal, he did not care at all, and he 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."

At the time, the company used this case as a sexual harassment prevention training resource, and the company also pointed out that there were multiple posts and comments in the internal community that the remarks constituted sexual harassment.

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.

The court said, "In order for sexual harassment to be established, the actor does not necessarily have to have a sexual motive or intent," and that "sexual humiliation or disgust is also defined as an example of the criteria for determining sexual harassment under the Gender Employment Equality Act's enforcement rules."

The court questioned whether Mr. B had sincerely and sufficiently apologized to Mr. A, and in view of the disciplinary action, the alimony was set at 3 million won.

(Photo = Yonhap News)