▲ The above photo is not directly related to the content of the article.
A Seoul National University faculty member who was suspended for making sexist remarks towards a female subordinate filed an invalidation lawsuit but lost.
According to the legal profession today (9th), the Civil Division 41 of the Seoul Central District Law (Chief Judge Chung Hoe-il) recently ruled that the plaintiff lost the lawsuit filed by Seoul National University faculty member A against Seoul National University for confirmation of disciplinary invalidity and claiming damages.
In March 2018, at a dinner with victim B, who had been with the company for three days, Mr. A, the head of a department at Seoul National University, mentioned a specific sexual assault case and said, "(The perpetrator of the incident) was hooked up with a flower snake," adding, "The head of the agency can be ruined depending on which subordinate he meets, so Mr. B should take good care of the director."
As a result of this remark, in August of the same year, Mr. A was ordered to separate himself from Mr. B, who ranted to Mr. B, saying that he had "no basics" and "no hair."
It was investigated that Miss A made sexist remarks in her office at least once a day, such as "I can't work because I'm a woman," "That's why women shouldn't use it," "Women work ignorantly and substandard," and "Women are definitely less capable."
He also pointed out the work of Mr. B, a contract apprentice, and did not hesitate to mention "home education" or to speak about employment disadvantages, saying, "Do you know what happens when the probationary period ends?"
Even in a space where other employees could listen, they insulted Mr. B by saying, "You don't keep talking to the director," "Is he really a kid from college?" and he also reprimanded him for using annual leave, saying, "I've just joined the company, but I've never seen a kid use annual leave."
Seoul National University suspended Ms. A for three months in March 3 for "making sexually harassing and human rights violative remarks."
Mr. A then filed a lawsuit, saying, "All the disciplinary grounds are untrue or based on the victim's exaggerated statements, and even if some of the reasons are recognized, these are the words and actions made in the process of reprimanding the subordinate, and three months of suspension is too heavy."
After examining the case, the tribunal found that "the plaintiff's admission of the remarks related to the 'flower snake' and the statements of the employees present (at the meal) are broadly consistent," and that "the 'flower snake' remarks appear to be statements that are likely to cause the victim to feel sexually humiliated or disgusted."
"(The plaintiff's actions) are excessive points or unfair reprimands that are beyond what is acceptable in society, and may cause anxiety and fear to other co-workers," and "the plaintiff's disciplinary grounds are sexual harassment or gross misconduct that violates the victim's personality rights."