"Attractive Person Should Sit Next to Boss"... Court Rules Salary Reduction Justified

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

The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won) ruled against the plaintiff, identified as A, on the 16th in a lawsuit filed against the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission to cancel a retrial adjudication that rejected a remedy for unfair discipline.

Plaintiff A, who served as the planning office director of a dance troupe affiliated with a foundation, received a one-month salary reduction following a subordinate's report of sexual harassment and workplace bullying.

The disciplinary action was taken because A made a sexually harassing remark to a planning team employee during lunch, saying, "An attractive person should sit next to the president."

Inappropriate remarks directed at an employee working reduced hours for childcare and raising voice regarding work-related matters were also initially raised as issues, but these were excluded from the disciplinary grounds through a remedy application A filed with the Regional Labor Relations Commission.

However, the Regional Labor Relations Commission judged that the sexual harassment remark alone did not strip the one-month salary reduction of its validity.

After the National Labor Relations Commission subsequently dismissed another request for a retrial, A filed an administrative lawsuit in September of last year.

A argued that the expression "attractive" 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 about appearance between people of the same sex, leading to instructions or recommendations regarding seating arrangements at a dining table. 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 could likely have 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 average, ordinary person to feel sexual humiliation and disgust."

The court also pointed out that the remark that "an attractive person should sit next to the president" could sufficiently be interpreted as containing elements of a service-oriented role, beyond simply sitting in a specific location.

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

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