A Case of Workplace Harassment (Unwanted & Repeated Attempts from a Supervisor to Become Romantically Involved)
Bongsoo Jung, a Korean labor attorney at KangNam Labor Law Firm
I. Introduction
In early September 2024, the HR team of a company received a request to investigate a claim of workplace harassment. The case involved a female employee in her early 30s who had been with the company for less than two years, and who reported that she could no longer tolerate the persistent expressions of affection from her department head, a man in his mid-40s with over 20 years at the company. Although the situation could be seen as sexual harassment due to the conduct being gender-based, it appeared more consistent with workplace harassment, as the superior was allegedly leveraging his position to infringe upon the subordinate’s personal rights.
Upon investigation, it was revealed that the male department head had, following a private lunch with the employee on July 5, 2024, repeatedly personally contacted her over the subsequent two months. This contact included one lunch, one individual meeting, one dinner, eight non-work-related emails, and several text messages. After their initial lunch appointment, the female employee emailed him, stating, “I ask that any future meetings be only official consultations rather than private meals.” The department head's related actions that followed included:
① Summoning the employee to a conference room for an in-person meeting, during which he commented on “the blurred line between personal and professional matters.”
② Sending an email expressing romantic interest, to which she responded with, “Your behavior does not align with the duties of someone with a family. Please view our relationship as solely professional.”
③ Sending a photo late at night of instant ramen and drinks purchased from a convenience store.
④ Reserving a private room at a restaurant for a one-on-one dinner without prior discussion.
⑤ Sending emails without need, suggesting that a manager in the same department was making her uncomfortable by allegedly showing interest in her, even offering to “arrange his transfer to a different team” for her.
In summary, a married department head in his 40s, with two children, continued to inappropriately express affection toward a newly hired, unmarried female employee in her early 30s, repeatedly indicating a desire for a romantic relationship. Although the female employee provided sufficient evidence to support her claim, the department head continued to assert that his intentions were simply to foster a friendly relationship.
This article will examine the specific details of the unwanted advances by a supervisor towards an employee in the workplace, as well as the relevant legal standards for judgment, the employer’s responsibilities, and the actions taken by the company in response to the situation.
II. Facts of the Case
1. Relationship Between the Complainant and Respondent
The complainant (female, 31) is a regular employee without any managerial position and has been with the company for two years. The respondent is the head of her department (male, 47), holds a managerial position and has been with the company for 20 years. He is also the complainant’s second-level supervisor.
2. Details of the Harassment
(1) One-on-One Lunch on July 8, 2024, and Continued Personal Contact
The complainant was working remotely on Mondays and Fridays. On July 8, the respondent sent her a "Teams" message inviting her to a work-related lunch in Yangjae, Seocho-gu. However, during lunch, the respondent only discussed the complainant's family and personal life, avoiding any work-related topics. After lunch, they returned to the Jamsil office in the same taxi, but he suggested they enter the office separately, seemingly concerned about being seen together.
Later that evening, at 11:33 p.m., the respondent emailed the complainant, linking to it the website of a wine bar and saying, “Let’s have a drink sometime when you’re free,” and attaching a photo of actor Song Kang, telling her to “watch Song Kang and sleep well.” The next morning, on July 9, the complainant replied, stating she was not available for lunch and that she was surprised by the lack of work-related discussion the previous day. She requested that future conversations remain professional.
On July 11, 2024, the respondent asked her for a one-on-one meeting in the conference room, where he presented a PowerPoint with no work content, only images of couples and information on MBTI personality types. He confessed personal feelings toward her and expressed regret over “blurred lines between personal and professional matters,” admitting he felt “sorry for any discomfort caused.”
(2) Expression of Affection in an Email on July 13, 2024
In the early hours of July 13, the respondent sent a lengthy email, ambiguously stating, “Don’t reject me just because you don’t know me well yet,” “I like you, and dating at work wouldn’t make things uncomfortable; I’ve changed a lot for you, and I’ll handle everything without causing you any burden. Let’s not say ‘No’ so easily.”
Instead of replying immediately, the complainant responded on July 15, 2024, at 6:21 p.m., clearly rejecting his advances, writing, “Your behavior does not align with the obligations of someone with a family. Please view our relationship as solely professional.” The respondent immediately sent an apologetic message, “I’m sorry. I never intended to make you uncomfortable, and I truly apologize if my actions caused you discomfort. I will ensure this does not cause further difficulty, and if you ever feel uncomfortable again, please inform me as you did today so I can immediately correct it. I am sincerely sorry.” The complainant felt reassured there would be no further issues.
(3) Late-Night Email on August 14, 2024
On a day when the department had lunch together, the respondent asked if he could take home a sandwich belonging to the complainant that she had not finished. Later, at 10:20 p.m., he emailed her, thanking her for the sandwich and attaching a picture of instant ramen and a drink he had bought at a convenience store. She felt uncomfortable, as the message resembled a casual photo exchange between romantic partners. On the morning of August 16, the respondent messaged her on Teams with personal questions, asking her to “think of him as a friend” and followed up with another non-work-related message later in the day.
(4) Dinner at a Private Room Restaurant on August 20, 2024
The respondent invited the complainant for dinner, messaging her to “go home together after dinner.” The complainant accepted, intending to resolve the uncomfortable relationship and assert her view. Upon acceptance, the respondent informed her he had already made a reservation at a private room restaurant near her home in Yangjae-dong. During dinner, she made it clear that she respected him professionally but had no personal interest. The respondent reacted negatively, saying, “I’m not happy with this. Going forward, I’ll only say what I want. I won’t listen much to what you have to say.” He later sent an email at 9 p.m. on August 21, apologizing for his “rude behavior” the previous evening, admitting he had acted thoughtlessly, although the complainant was unsure of his sincerity.
(5) Consideration of a Transfer for the Complainant’s Immediate Supervisor on August 23, 2024
At approximately 4 a.m. on August 23, the respondent sent two emails asking for the complainant’s opinion on reassigning her immediate supervisor, Manager A, stating that Manager A seemed to make her uncomfortable and might be transferred to another department. The complainant felt this was an attempt by the respondent to gain her favor by misusing his authority, which she perceived as a clear “abuse of power.” This led her to decide that the issue extended beyond her personal boundaries and to file an official complaint of workplace harassment.
3. Consequences of the Harassment
Initially, the complainant believed that everyone makes mistakes and thought that quietly overlooking the incident would lead the department head to reflect on his actions. She was concerned that, if this situation became known, her name would be associated with rumors unrelated to work, and as a woman, she feared potential secondary victimization despite being the victim. However, she eventually decided to file a complaint, as the respondent (her second-level supervisor) increasingly allowed personal feelings to interfere with work, and she could no longer tolerate the negative impact on her immediate supervisor. The complainant stated that she has no intention of leaving her current department or the company and wished to continue working there.
III. Reporting Workplace Harassment and Employer Responsibilities
1. Distinction Between Workplace Harassment and Workplace Sexual Harassment
Under the current Gender Equality in Employment Act, "workplace sexual harassment" is defined as an employer, supervisor, or employee using their position or work-related circumstances to subject another employee to unwanted sexual behavior, causing sexual humiliation or offense, or causing disadvantage in employment or working conditions if the individual does not comply (Article 2, Paragraph 2). "Sexual behavior" includes actions, depending on the relationship between the parties, location, situation, and the explicit or presumed response of the recipient, that would objectively lead a reasonable person in the recipient’s situation to feel sexual humiliation or offense. This encompasses making unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, gender-discriminatory remarks, or treating the recipient as a sexual object or with sexual bias in words and actions.
Under the Labor Standards Act, "workplace harassment" is defined as an act by an employer or employee that abuses their position or relationship superiority at work to inflict physical or psychological suffering on another employee or worsens their work environment beyond reasonable work bounds (Article 76-2). In this case, although the department head did not engage in overtly sexual behavior toward the female employee, his persistent expressions of affection continued despite her clear rejections. In a similar lower court case, persistent contact and excessive work orders from a supervisor who had been rejected after proposing a romantic relationship were judged to constitute workplace harassment.
2. Employer Responsibilities
Under current law regarding workplace sexual harassment, the Gender Equality in Employment Act states that if sexual harassment is confirmed following an investigation, the employer must promptly take appropriate action, such as disciplinary measures or relocating the perpetrator, after consulting the employee victim on the proposed action (Article 14, Paragraph 5). Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to 5 million won (Article 39).
Regarding workplace harassment, the Labor Standards Act similarly stipulates that if harassment is confirmed, the employer must immediately take appropriate measures, including disciplinary action or relocation of the perpetrator, after consulting the victim on the proposed action (Article 76-3, Paragraph 4). Failure to comply can also result in a fine of up to 5 million won (Article 116).
In this case, the employer is obligated to assess whether workplace harassment occurred and implement appropriate disciplinary action. Generally, employers should refer to the disciplinary provisions in the company’s employment regulations to determine what disciplinary action is appropriate to take against the respondent (perpetrator) and the right protective measures for the complainant (victim).
IV. Company’s Assessment of the Facts and Consequent Actions
1. Company’s Assessment of the Facts
The respondent claimed that the one-on-one meeting on the morning of July 11, 2024, was merely intended to praise and recognize the complainant’s professional abilities and did not involve expressing romantic interest. However, based on audio recordings, it is sufficient to conclude that the respondent conveyed a romantic interest toward the complainant, even though he did not explicitly state, “I like you” or “Let’s date within the company.” The respondent later acknowledged the inappropriateness of his romantic overtures in his email on July 13, 2024. Additionally, sending a late-night email on August 14, reserving a private room at a restaurant for a one-on-one dinner on August 20 without prior discussion, and attempting to reassign the complainant’s immediate supervisor on August 23 to supposedly “help” her, were all deemed to be inappropriate actions unrelated to work.
This series of unsolicited romantic gestures and interactions from the respondent could be considered workplace harassment. Specifically, ① the respondent, as a married department head, made advances toward the complainant, an unmarried female subordinate, ② as a supervisor with authority over evaluation and control, his requests for personal meetings or conversations were difficult for her to refuse openly, even if they were clearly non-work-related, and ③ despite the complainant’s explicit rejection, the behavior continued. Objectively, these actions would likely cause a typical employee in the complainant’s position to feel harassed in the workplace. However, the respondent’s remorse and genuine apology to the complainant are factors that the employer (company) should consider when determining disciplinary measures.
2. Company Actions
The company assigned an external expert to conduct an objective investigation into the complaint, examining both the complainant and the respondent and presenting relevant evidence. Based on these findings, the company concluded that the respondent’s actions constituted “workplace harassment” involving misuse of authority toward a subordinate. In accordance with the company’s disciplinary procedure regulations, the complainant’s input was thoroughly considered, and appropriate disciplinary measures for workplace harassment were determined. The primary disciplinary actions included a three-month salary reduction (October 1, 2024 - December 31, 2024) and an order for the respondent to work remotely during this period, with reassignment to a suitable department by December.
V. Conclusion
Workplace harassment occurs in a variety of forms and is increasingly being reported rather than tolerated. This case exemplifies harassment established by continuous expressions of affection toward a subordinate in a way that leveraged workplace authority. A department head in his 40s initiating personal meetings and relationship with a female employee in her early 30s, who has only been with the company for two years and despite her clear expressions of rejection and of her discomfort, represents a classic instance of workplace harassment, as the superior used his power to infringe on the subordinate’s personal rights.
While mutual expressions of affection or romantic relationships between consenting adults are possible within the workplace, persistent expressions of affection after a clear rejection disregard the individual’s personal rights and can constitute harassment or abuse of power. Recognizing that workplace harassment can readily arise, it is essential for labor and management to foster mutual respect for personal rights, and further the development of a work culture where all employees can achieve personal growth.
|
|
Connect to the app
