Can Repeated Profanity Not Directed at a Specific
Person Constitute Workplace Harassment?

Bongsoo Jung (Labor attorney, KangNam
Labor Law Firm)

I. Introduction

 Workplace
harassment refers to an act, or acts, by an employer or superior who, using his
or her superiority in workplace position or relationship, causes physical or
mental suffering towards another employee or worsens the working environment
(Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act).
This case is introduced because the key issues were: (1) whether repeated
severe profanity uttered alone, without being directed at a specific employee,
can constitute workplace harassment; and (2) if workplace harassment is
established, what level of disciplinary action would be appropriate and how the
company should restore workplace order.

 The complainant
alleged that, at least ten times within the most recent six months, the
Membership Management Team Leader (hereinafter the “respondent”) engaged in
violent verbal conduct in the office, repeatedly using profanity, vulgar
expressions, and shouting loudly after ending phone calls, openly in front of
employees who were lower in rank or subordinate to him. This article reviews
the specific facts, determines whether workplace harassment was established
based on those facts, and examines the appropriate level of discipline for the
harassment and the measures the company should take to prevent recurrence.

II. Confirmation of
Facts

1. Investigation of
the Complainant

“On September 18, 2025, from around 9:30 yesterday
morning (it was already happening when I arrived at work), the respondent
loudly used extremely harsh profanity in the office throughout the morning.”
(It was very severe.) “After the respondent left for outside work, I thought it
over and felt that Witness 1, Witness 2, and Witness 3 would also have
perceived it as verbal violence, and that the office work atmosphere had become
so hostile that this was truly unacceptable. I therefore shared the situation
with another team leader.” “He repeatedly said the words ‘Andrew, that f*cking
bastard’ at least ten times over 30 minutes. I am raising this matter not
simply because I alone did not want to hear it, but because it negatively
affects the company’s reputation in the eyes of student interns and because the
working atmosphere on the second floor became frozen, disrupting our
work.”   

2. Interview of
Witnesses

(1) Witness 1
(Intern)

 The respondent
“often uses expressions such as ‘f*ck’ and ‘that’s bullsh*t’ after ending phone
calls. I am in the position of hearing the respondent’s calls the most, and
particularly when an issue arises during calls with outside companies
(customers), he makes the above remarks several times a day if he becomes
upset. For example, after saying something like, ‘So what if you’re an
official, f*ck,’ he often leaves the office to smoke and then comes back in. He
frequently uses words such as ‘f*ck,’ ‘f*cking,’ and ‘crazy bastard.’”

(2) Witness 2
(Respondent’s subordinate employee, Assistant Manager X)

The respondent makes
about ten phone calls a day and uses profanity or vulgar expressions after
about six or seven of them. He seems to have severe mood swings, and often
bangs his desk or keyboard and leaves the office. The company installed a
canopy (a leaf-shaped screen) as a measure to protect the complainant, but it
had little effect. Even in ordinary situations, he would unnecessarily get up
from his seat in an aggressive manner, repeatedly find fault with the intern’s (witness’s) work, and say things such as, ‘I don’t know why Andrew does work like this, this bastard.’ After ending calls with customers, he also often says, ‘This bastard doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.’”

“When the above
conduct seemed too severe, the Event Team Leader, who sits nearby, is at the
same level as the respondent, and has worked for the company for a long time,
told him several times, ‘Please do not go too far.’ However, there was no
improvement afterward. After being told this, he would calm down for a few
minutes, but he would soon start using vulgar language again, such as ‘No, this
bastard...,’ while trying to justify why he felt wronged. When the respondent’s
conduct becomes too severe, I sometimes move to another workspace to perform my
work. I feel that the working environment has seriously deteriorated, and I do
not want to be in the same space when the respondent is swearing. When I hear the
respondent swearing, my heart pounds so much that I want to leave the space,
but it is very difficult because I have to remain at my desk during work. When
the intensity is strong, I tremble to the point where it is difficult to
concentrate on work, and I often feel afraid.

(3) Witness 3 (Team
Leader of another department at the same level)

 The respondent
tends to mutter to himself because he has a quick temper. His voice is also
loud, and the office itself has an echoing structure, so these remarks are
easily heard by other employees in the office. Because I am older than the
respondent, if I tell him to be careful, he is careful at that moment. However,
when he becomes upset again, he seems to forget and repeats the conduct. In
front of me, however, he has not gone as far as using the word ‘f*ck’; I have only heard expressions such as ‘oh,
damn’ and ‘bullsh*t.’

3. Interview of the
Respondent

I worked with the
Korean Vice President for 15 years, and I am the type of person who works
harder when praised. However, the way my current direct superior (the foreign
Vice President, Andrew) gives work instructions and his leadership style are
different from what I am used to and do not fit well with me, so conflicts seem
to have arisen and I ended up expressing anger. I do not frequently mutter to
myself or express anger just because I am angry. Since I do not communicate
much with others, when I am stressed, I usually go outside to smoke. Until now,
although I used profanity and vulgar expressions, I have never separately
apologized to the members of the office, nor have I separately explained why I
used profanity or vulgar language. I think people sharing the office may have
been embarrassed because they did not know the reason. However, the conflicts with
superiors or customers were not caused by the lower-ranking members in the
office. Since then, I felt that I had been framed as a perpetrator of workplace
harassment. After I was notified by email of the investigation on October 13, I
went to a university hospital the very next day, had an electrocardiogram, and
was diagnosed with temporary stress-related difficulty breathing. Through this
opportunity, I reflected on my usual language and behavior in the office and
concluded that I should improve.

4. Determination of
Facts

All employees who
worked near the respondent and who were lower than the respondent in rank or
workplace relationship consistently stated that, after ending phone calls, the
respondent repeatedly used profanity, vulgar expressions, and shouted loudly,
displayed threatening verbal conduct, and worsened the working environment.
Although there were differences in the respondent’s intent and in how each
individual perceived the intensity of the conduct, all stated that the
respondent’s conduct interfered with their work and
that they wanted him to be separated from them. The complainant’s statement is accepted as true: after ending calls in the office,
the respondent routinely used vulgar expressions such as “bullsh*t” and “bastard” several times per week, and depending on his mood, he sometimes
used violent profanity such as “f*cking bastard” and “f*ck.” It was
also confirmed that such conduct occurred more frequently and more intensely
when junior employees of lower rank, such as an assistant manager and interns,
were present.

III. Determination
of Whether Workplace Harassment Was Established

1. Requirements for
Workplace Harassment

 For workplace
harassment to be established according to Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act, the following three
requirements must be satisfied. If any one of the requirements is not
satisfied, workplace harassment is not established. To conduct an objective and
fair investigation, the determination of whether workplace harassment was
established in this case is made based on legal principles from court decisions
involving reports of workplace harassment with facts similar to this case.

(1) Conduct using superiority in workplace position or
relationship

  Workplace
position includes persons who can be recognized as having a superior position
within the workplace, regardless of a formal “command or order relationship.”
In general, if a person holds a superior rank and is in a position to give
work-related instructions or orders, that person has “business-related superiority.”[1]

(2) Conduct exceeding the appropriate scope of work

 Whether the
conduct at issue exceeds the appropriate scope of work should be determined
based on the business rationality of the conduct itself and workplace practice.
The requirement is met if (1) the conduct is not recognized as necessary for
work in light of social norms, or (2) even if work-related necessity is
recognized, the manner of the conduct is considered inappropriate in light of
social norms.

(3) Conduct that causes physical or mental suffering or
worsens the working environment

 Conduct that
worsens a person’s working environment means conduct that causes interference
with the person’s ability to perform to a degree that cannot be overlooked.
Even if the actor had no such intent, the requirement is recognized if the
conduct caused mental or physical suffering or worsened the working
environment. In this case in particular, because the complainant is a junior
employee with a significantly shorter period of service than the respondent, it
must also be additionally reviewed whether the above requirements could be
satisfied from the perspective of a reasonable and average person in the same
position as the complainant (a junior employee).

2. Determination of
Whether the Respondent’s Conduct Constituted Workplace Harassment

(1) Use of
superiority in position or relationship (√) 

 The respondent
is a managerial employee (team leader) who has worked for the company for
approximately 17 years, since 2008. Compared with the complainant, a junior
employee who was hired in 2023 and holds the rank of assistant manager, the
respondent clearly has superiority in both workplace position and rank within
the company. Furthermore, the respondent has often mentioned his long tenure,
and in light of his greater work experience than the complainant, his
superiority is recognized not only in position and rank but also in
relationship. Therefore, the respondent is recognized as having superiority
over the complainant in both position and relationship.

(2) Exceeds the
appropriate scope of work (√) 

 Court precedents
take the position that, even where profanity and vulgar language are not
specifically directed at another party, workplace harassment may be established
if profanity toward a third party is repeated and continued in a public place,
causing mental suffering to multiple people exposed to the conduct and
worsening the working environment. In particular, a superior’s one-sided
profanity repeated within the company premises, in an open and public place,
may give subordinates a sense of pressure or intimidation even if the profanity
is directed at a third party. Considering that such conduct is sufficiently
likely to worsen other employees’ working environment, if subordinates feel offended
by the conduct and feel that it interfered with their work, the conduct is
deemed to exceed the appropriate scope of work and constitute workplace
harassment.[2]

During working
hours, while emotionally agitated due to conflicts with his superior (company
management) or customers, the respondent expressed anger in the office, mainly
where lower-ranking employees were present, and routinely used vulgar
expressions to himself such as “bullsh*t” and “bastard.” In some cases, when
his emotions became further heightened, he repeatedly shouted severe profanity
such as “f*ck” and “that f*cking bastard; I can’t kill him or beat him up,”
causing listeners to feel offended and, in particular, repeatedly engaging in
violent verbal conduct that psychologically intimidated lower-ranking
employees. The respondent’s routine and repeated use of profanity and vulgar
expressions cannot be justified in the office, which is a public workspace.
Therefore, it had no work-related necessity, and even if any such necessity
existed, the conduct is deemed to have far exceeded the appropriate scope of
work.

(3) Physical or mental suffering or deterioration of
the working environment (√)

 It is recognized that the complainant suffered
mental distress, as the complainant had a canopy (a leaf-shaped screen) installed
on the desk because of the respondent’s conduct and, when the respondent’s
violent verbal conduct still did not improve, ultimately filed this report. In
addition, other witnesses had considered filing a workplace harassment report
immediately before the complainant’s report or had repeatedly requested
management to separate them from the respondent, citing “work inefficiency
caused by the respondent’s violent verbal conduct.” This is sufficient to
conclude that the overall office working environment deteriorated.

3. Conclusion

In conclusion, the
conduct at issue was “the act of publicly displaying violent verbal conduct in the office
by continuously and repeatedly using profanity, vulgar expressions, and
shouting loudly after phone calls in front of employees who were lower than the
respondent in rank and workplace relationship.”
Therefore, (1) the respondent used superiority in workplace position or
relationship; (2) the conduct exceeded the appropriate scope of work; and (3)
the conduct caused mental suffering or worsened the working environment. As all
three requirements are satisfied, the respondent’s
personal profanity and related conduct constitute workplace harassment.

IV. Recommended
Company Actions

1. For the Complainant

Because the respondent’s conduct reported by the
complainant constitutes workplace harassment, the company should take
appropriate action under Article 76-3(4) of the Labor Standards Act at the complainant’s request, such as changing
the place of work, transferring duties, or ordering paid leave. Therefore,
after notifying the parties of the findings of the workplace harassment
investigation, the company should again listen to the complainant’s opinion on
follow-up measures and reflect the complainant’s wishes as much as possible.
During the face-to-face interview, the only follow-up measure requested by the
complainant was that the respondent, who is currently separated, not move from
the separate space and continue to work there. Since many witnesses do not want
the respondent to return to the existing office, it would be appropriate to
keep the respondent (one person) separated in consideration of the complainant
and other employees and to improve work efficiency.

In addition, Article
76-3(5) provides that the complainant’s opinion must be heard before
disciplinary action is taken against the harasser. Therefore, before
disciplining the harasser for workplace harassment, the company should
interview the complainant and hear the complainant’s views, either orally or in
writing, regarding the disciplinary measure against him. Furthermore, even
after the workplace harassment investigation has been completed, the
complainant should be informed that the duty of confidentiality still applies
because disciplinary action and other follow-up measures against the harasser
remain pending.

2. For the
Respondent

The external
investigation found that the respondent’s conduct constituted workplace
harassment, which is in accordance with the company’s disciplinary procedure
guidelines. Therefore, pursuant to Article 76-3(5) of the Labor Standards Act and the relevant guideline provisions, the
company should take action against the respondent, including disciplinary
action. Your company’s disciplinary guidelines provide that, when grounds for disciplinary
action are confirmed as a result of an investigation, the company may resolve
the matter informally through support or training, or, if the matter is subject
to more severe disciplinary action, convene and deliberate through a
disciplinary committee with the accused employee in attendance. The company may
choose either option and make a disciplinary decision accordingly.

The seriousness of
the respondent’s conduct is recognized in light of the following circumstances:
the consistency of the complainant’s and multiple witnesses’ statements in this
external investigation showed the continuity and repetition of the respondent’s
language and behavior; employees lower than the respondent in rank and
workplace relationship suffered mental distress and their working environment
deteriorated; and despite being a senior employee in a managerial position who
should have set an example, the respondent instead took the lead in disturbing
workplace order, psychologically intimidated lower-ranking employees in the
process, and worsened the working environment for multiple employees. On the
other hand, considering as mitigating factors that the respondent worked for
the company for a long period and contributed to its development, and that he
has no prior disciplinary record, it is recommended that the company impose a
light disciplinary measure, ranging from a reprimand at least to a reduction of
salary.

3. Recommended
Company Measures

From the date on
which the formal workplace harassment report was received until resolution of
the investigation, the company has fulfilled its obligation to conduct an
objective external workplace harassment investigation through an outside expert
in accordance with the Labor Standards
Act and the company’s own rules of employment and disciplinary procedure guidelines. The
complainant also stated during the face-to-face investigation that the
complainant was satisfied with the company’s measures
to date and did not request any additional measures during the investigation
other than continued separation from the respondent. Even after the workplace
harassment investigation is completed, the company should make efforts to
ensure that all appropriate follow-up measures are implemented fully in
accordance with the Labor Standards Act
and the company’s disciplinary procedure guidelines.

Meanwhile, during
the face-to-face interviews, some witness statements suggested the possibility
of additional misconduct by the harasser outside of workplace harassment,
including (1) insubordination toward a superior, (2) improper conduct in
responding to customers that caused damage to the company, and (3) workplace
sexual harassment. If the company initiates a separate disciplinary
investigation regarding these issues, it should refer to the written
fact-confirmation statements obtained during this workplace harassment
investigation and clearly determine the truth of the allegations. Finally, at
the company level, training should be provided to all employees on the norms
and basic etiquette to be observed in the workplace so that similar conduct
will not recur in the future.