Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Sexual Harassment and Duty to Maintain Dignity (Changing Clothes During a Company Dinner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 414)
- Date2026/04/29 04:09
- Read 142
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “sexual harassment and duty to maintain dignity (changing clothes during a company dinner).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9228 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.10 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that, due to this inappropriate conduct, the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust. This constitutes sexual harassment and further falls under “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” as prescribed in Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a public institution’s public service employee on a fixed-term contract was disciplined for changing clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming unfair dismissal and unfair disciplinary action.
The Labor Relations Commission examined the case focusing on whether the conduct fell under the grounds for disciplinary action under the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether the act of changing clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner constitutes workplace sexual harassment and a violation of the duty to maintain dignity; whether the lowest level of disciplinary sanction (a reprimand) imposed for that conduct constitutes an unfair disciplinary action that exceeds or abuses the disciplinary authority’s discretion; and further, whether there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process such that the case constitutes unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that it was established that the employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner; that, from the standpoint of an average person, it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust, and that this therefore constitutes sexual harassment; and that the conduct clearly falls within the grounds for disciplinary action of “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” under the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
Accordingly, the panel held that grounds for disciplinary action existed with respect to the employee.
In addition, taking into account that the employee’s conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary action under the regulations; that the employer needs to respond strictly to workplace sexual harassment in order to maintain organizational order; and that the actual sanction imposed was only a reprimand, which is the lowest level of disciplinary action,
the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as having lost its reasonableness to a remarkable extent under social norms in terms of the level of discipline, and could not be regarded as an unfair disciplinary action that exceeded or abused the disciplinary authority’s discretion.
Furthermore, the panel found that there were no material defects in the disciplinary procedures, given that the employer notified the employee in advance of the convening of the disciplinary committee, that the employee attended the committee and was given an opportunity to explain, and that although the notice of the period for filing an appeal was somewhat delayed, the notice was nonetheless given within the statutory appeal period, thereby substantively guaranteeing the means of remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even in informal settings such as company dinners, any words or conduct that may infringe another person’s sexual self-determination and personality rights can be evaluated as workplace sexual harassment.
In particular, assertions such as “it was just a joke” or “it was at a drinking party” are unlikely to be considered mitigating factors, and if the victim’s feelings of sexual humiliation or disgust are objectively recognized, disciplinary action on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain dignity may be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly specify sexual harassment and violation of the duty to maintain dignity as grounds for disciplinary action in the rules of employment and internal regulations, and to establish in advance the standards for the level of discipline corresponding to such conduct.
In addition, it is advisable to document procedures such as notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, and guidance on the appeal process, so that, in the event of a later dispute over unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary action, it becomes easier before the Labor Relations Commission to prove the legitimacy of the grounds, procedures, and level of discipline. These matters should be reviewed together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that, due to this inappropriate conduct, the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust. This constitutes sexual harassment and further falls under “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” as prescribed in Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for disciplinary action against the employee fall under Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts, and disciplinary action against the employee appears unavoidable for the employer in order to maintain organizational order. Therefore, the reprimand, which is the lowest level of disciplinary sanction, cannot be viewed as having lost its reasonableness to a remarkable extent under social norms, nor can it be regarded as an act exceeding or abusing the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was notified in advance of the convening of the disciplinary committee, and it is confirmed that the employee attended the disciplinary committee and explained with respect to the grounds for discipline. Although notice of the appeal period was delayed, the notice of the right to appeal was given within the appeal period, and thus the period during which an appeal could be filed was guaranteed. In light of the fact that the employee did not file an appeal despite this, it is concluded that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that, due to this inappropriate conduct, the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust. This constitutes sexual harassment and further falls under “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” as prescribed in Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for disciplinary action against the employee fall under Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts, and disciplinary action against the employee appears unavoidable for the employer in order to maintain organizational order. Therefore, the reprimand, which is the lowest level of disciplinary sanction, cannot be viewed as having lost its reasonableness to a remarkable extent under social norms, nor can it be regarded as an act exceeding or abusing the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was notified in advance of the convening of the disciplinary committee, and it is confirmed that the employee attended the disciplinary committee and explained with respect to the grounds for discipline. Although notice of the appeal period was delayed, the notice of the right to appeal was given within the appeal period, and thus the period during which an appeal could be filed was guaranteed. In light of the fact that the employee did not file an appeal despite this, it is concluded that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Daily Worker at Construction Site)’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, sexual harassment and duty to maintain dignity (changing clothes during a company dinner), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Daily Worker at Construction Site),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to sexual harassment and duty to maintain dignity (changing clothes during a company dinner) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Relating to Sexual Harassment and Duty to Maintain Dignity (Changing Clothes During a Company Dinner)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “sexual harassment and duty to maintain dignity (changing clothes during a company dinner).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9228 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.10 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that, due to this inappropriate conduct, the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust. This constitutes sexual harassment and further falls under “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” as prescribed in Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a public institution’s public service employee on a fixed-term contract was disciplined for changing clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming unfair dismissal and unfair disciplinary action.
The Labor Relations Commission examined the case focusing on whether the conduct fell under the grounds for disciplinary action under the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether the act of changing clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner constitutes workplace sexual harassment and a violation of the duty to maintain dignity; whether the lowest level of disciplinary sanction (a reprimand) imposed for that conduct constitutes an unfair disciplinary action that exceeds or abuses the disciplinary authority’s discretion; and further, whether there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process such that the case constitutes unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that it was established that the employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner; that, from the standpoint of an average person, it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust, and that this therefore constitutes sexual harassment; and that the conduct clearly falls within the grounds for disciplinary action of “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” under the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
Accordingly, the panel held that grounds for disciplinary action existed with respect to the employee.
In addition, taking into account that the employee’s conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary action under the regulations; that the employer needs to respond strictly to workplace sexual harassment in order to maintain organizational order; and that the actual sanction imposed was only a reprimand, which is the lowest level of disciplinary action,
the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as having lost its reasonableness to a remarkable extent under social norms in terms of the level of discipline, and could not be regarded as an unfair disciplinary action that exceeded or abused the disciplinary authority’s discretion.
Furthermore, the panel found that there were no material defects in the disciplinary procedures, given that the employer notified the employee in advance of the convening of the disciplinary committee, that the employee attended the committee and was given an opportunity to explain, and that although the notice of the period for filing an appeal was somewhat delayed, the notice was nonetheless given within the statutory appeal period, thereby substantively guaranteeing the means of remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even in informal settings such as company dinners, any words or conduct that may infringe another person’s sexual self-determination and personality rights can be evaluated as workplace sexual harassment.
In particular, assertions such as “it was just a joke” or “it was at a drinking party” are unlikely to be considered mitigating factors, and if the victim’s feelings of sexual humiliation or disgust are objectively recognized, disciplinary action on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain dignity may be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly specify sexual harassment and violation of the duty to maintain dignity as grounds for disciplinary action in the rules of employment and internal regulations, and to establish in advance the standards for the level of discipline corresponding to such conduct.
In addition, it is advisable to document procedures such as notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, and guidance on the appeal process, so that, in the event of a later dispute over unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary action, it becomes easier before the Labor Relations Commission to prove the legitimacy of the grounds, procedures, and level of discipline. These matters should be reviewed together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that, due to this inappropriate conduct, the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust. This constitutes sexual harassment and further falls under “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” as prescribed in Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for disciplinary action against the employee fall under Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts, and disciplinary action against the employee appears unavoidable for the employer in order to maintain organizational order. Therefore, the reprimand, which is the lowest level of disciplinary sanction, cannot be viewed as having lost its reasonableness to a remarkable extent under social norms, nor can it be regarded as an act exceeding or abusing the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was notified in advance of the convening of the disciplinary committee, and it is confirmed that the employee attended the disciplinary committee and explained with respect to the grounds for discipline. Although notice of the appeal period was delayed, the notice of the right to appeal was given within the appeal period, and thus the period during which an appeal could be filed was guaranteed. In light of the fact that the employee did not file an appeal despite this, it is concluded that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee changed clothes in front of the victim during a company dinner, and it is reasonable under the rules of experience to view that, due to this inappropriate conduct, the victim felt sexual humiliation or disgust. This constitutes sexual harassment and further falls under “violation of the duty to maintain dignity” as prescribed in Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for disciplinary action against the employee fall under Article 37 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service Employees on Fixed-Term Contracts, and disciplinary action against the employee appears unavoidable for the employer in order to maintain organizational order. Therefore, the reprimand, which is the lowest level of disciplinary sanction, cannot be viewed as having lost its reasonableness to a remarkable extent under social norms, nor can it be regarded as an act exceeding or abusing the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was notified in advance of the convening of the disciplinary committee, and it is confirmed that the employee attended the disciplinary committee and explained with respect to the grounds for discipline. Although notice of the appeal period was delayed, the notice of the right to appeal was given within the appeal period, and thus the period during which an appeal could be filed was guaranteed. In light of the fact that the employee did not file an appeal despite this, it is concluded that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Daily Worker at Construction Site)’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, sexual harassment and duty to maintain dignity (changing clothes during a company dinner), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Daily Worker at Construction Site),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to sexual harassment and duty to maintain dignity (changing clothes during a company dinner) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Relating to Sexual Harassment and Duty to Maintain Dignity (Changing Clothes During a Company Dinner)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
