Court upholds suspension of supervisor who mocked employee for using parental leave

A court has ruled that a one-month suspension handed to a team leader who repeatedly made demeaning and sexually harassing remarks to a subordinate — including telling her "it's time to be a mom" as she left early under a civil servant parental leave policy — was justified. The supervisor's lawsuit arguing the discipline should be overturned, on the grounds that he was merely expressing concern over a backlog of work, was dismissed.

According to legal sources, the Incheon District Court's Administrative Division 2, presided over by Judge Song Jong-seon, ruled against civil servant A last month in an administrative lawsuit in which A sought to have his one-month suspension overturned. The court also ordered A to bear the litigation costs.

The relevant personnel committee had imposed a three-month suspension on A in September last year. According to the committee's investigation, A told a subordinate who was leaving early under the civil servant parental leave system, "It's time to be a mom," and added, "As a mother, that's impressive — you should put as much effort into your work as you do raising a child."

A was also found to have made sexually harassing remarks to the same subordinate. He told her, "You have big hands — and a big heart to match," and was found to have said things such as, "When you were young, your husband probably couldn't keep his hands off you," and "Do you love your husband that much?"

After receiving the three-month suspension, A filed an appeal seeking to have the discipline canceled. In December last year, the appeals review committee reduced the penalty from three months to one month. A nonetheless filed a lawsuit in March this year, arguing the discipline itself should be nullified entirely.

During the trial, A's side argued that his remarks were intended to encourage the subordinate to approach her work with the same dedication she showed in raising a child. He also claimed he was expressing regret as a team leader over the accumulating workload. Regarding the sexually harassing comments, he contended that he had been complimenting the couple's close relationship and that there had been no sexual intent, and that the remarks did not constitute workplace harassment or sexual harassment.

The court rejected A's arguments.

The court found that A's remarks appeared to place undue pressure on the subordinate for using the parental leave system. On the sexually harassing comments, it ruled that they "constituted conduct capable of causing sexual disgust by referencing the victim's body."

The court further stated that it was reasonable to conclude the conduct "amounted to an act of causing mental suffering or worsening the working environment beyond the appropriate scope of work, by exploiting a position of superiority in workplace status or relationships."

Among the grounds for its ruling, the court noted that the subordinate had testified she felt her "soul was being crushed" and had declared her intention to resign because she could no longer endure the situation. The court also cited consistent corroborating testimony from five colleagues.

The court found the level of discipline appropriate as well. It concluded that "the grounds for discipline risk undermining public trust in the civil service and worsening the working environment," and that it was necessary to hold A accountable accordingly.

The ruling is now final. A did not appeal the first-instance decision.