<Anchor>

The boss asked the new employee to date another male employee with a big age difference, and then asked for alimony. He repeated the same statement over and over again despite his refusal, and the court found that even if there was no sexual expression, it constituted sexual harassment in the workplace.

This is a report by reporter Kim Sang-min.

<Reporter>

In 2021, Mr. A, a 25-year male executive working for a large company, happened to know where Mr. B, a new employee, lived, at lunch with employees from the department next door.

Mr. A told Mr. B, who was a novice student, that a male employee from another department, who was about 20 years older than Mr. B, also lived nearby, and that "the two of you would be a good match."

Mr. A then asked if he liked chicken, and when Mr. B said yes, the male employee also said that he liked chicken, and he repeated the same statement.

Despite Mr. B's blunt refusal to say, "I don't think I like chicken anymore," he said, "That dude has a lot of money," and "Can't you do that?" The remarks followed.

In response to Mr. B's complaint, Mr. A was disciplined for three days, and Mr. B filed a lawsuit against Mr. A for damages, claiming that this even forced him to take a leave of absence from psychiatric treatment.

Both the courts of the first and second instance sentenced Ms. A to pay 3 million won in alimony, saying that her remarks amounted to sexual harassment in the workplace, and the verdict was recently confirmed.

It is difficult to believe that the two people, who have been separated in tenure for more than 1 years, talked on an equal basis, and it is judged that Mr. B must have felt sexually humiliated in the presence of other employees.

[Kim so-hyun/Lawyer (Human Rights Director, Korea Women's Lawyers Association): I was saying something to the effect that a man with a lot of money can have a liking for a man no matter what the man is.

Although Miss A argued that it was just a joke about an unmarried male colleague and that it was not sexual behavior, the court did not accept that words and actions that made people feel sexually humiliated or disgusted by social norms constituted sexual harassment, even if there was no sexual motive, intention, or obscene expression.

(Video Interview: Kim Seung-tae, Video Editing: Jung Sung-hoon)