Court Rules Salary Reduction Justified for Supervisor Who Told Subordinate 'Pretty Person Should Sit Next to President'

A court has ruled that a disciplinary salary reduction was justified for a senior employee who made sexually harassing remarks to a subordinate, telling them that a "pretty person should sit next to the president."

The Seoul Administrative Court (Administrative Division 12, Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won) ruled against the plaintiff, identified as A, on the 16th [July 16, 2026] in a lawsuit filed against the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission to cancel a review ruling that rejected relief for unfair disciplinary action.

A, who served as the planning office director for a dance company affiliated with a foundation, received a one-month salary reduction following reports of sexual harassment and workplace bullying by a subordinate.

The disciplinary action was taken because A told an employee on the planning team during a lunch gathering, "A pretty person should sit next to the president."

Other issues had also been raised, including inappropriate remarks made to an employee utilizing reduced working hours for childcare and shouting related to work matters, but these were excluded from the disciplinary grounds after A filed a relief application with the Regional Labor Relations Commission.

However, the Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded that the sexual harassment remark alone was sufficient to maintain the validity of the one-month salary reduction.

After the National Labor Relations Commission subsequently dismissed a request for a re-examination, A filed an administrative lawsuit in September of last year [2025].

A argued that the expression "pretty" does not constitute sexual harassment in itself and was not spoken with sexual intent or in the context of evaluating physical appearance.

The court rejected A's argument.

The court noted that A's remark went beyond a simple compliment on physical appearance between people of the same gender, leading to instructions or recommendations regarding seating arrangements at a lunch gathering. Considering that A was the direct supervisor of the employee, it was difficult to simply accept the remark as a joke or a compliment.

The court stated, "The employee likely perceived this as a direct instruction to sit next to the president based on their physical appearance," adding, "Such remarks evaluate or objectify the victim's appearance and are acts that can cause an ordinary and average person to feel sexual humiliation and disgust."

The court also pointed out that the remark telling a "pretty person to sit next to the president" could be sufficiently interpreted as implying an element of entertaining, beyond merely directing someone to a specific seat.

Regarding A's claim that there was no intent to commit sexual harassment, the court noted, "For sexual harassment to be established, the perpetrator does not necessarily need to have a sexual motive or intent."

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.