Reference image. [Getty Images Bank]
Reference image. [Getty Images Bank]

A civil servant demoted for remarks such as "for women, being pretty is all that matters" and "killer figure" has won a lawsuit challenging the disciplinary action. The court ruled that while the comments may have been crude, they did not rise to the level of causing sexual humiliation and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment.

According to legal sources, the administrative fourth division of Suwon District Court, presided over by Judge Im Su-yeon, ruled in favor of the plaintiff — a Gyeonggi Province civil servant identified as A — on June 10 in a suit seeking to overturn a demotion order. The court also ordered Gyeonggi Province to bear the litigation costs.

A disciplinary committee demoted A in August 2024 on the grounds that he had committed five acts of gapjil, sexual harassment and secondary victimization around January of that year.

At a work dinner, A was found to have told employee B, a fixed-term contract worker: "Why did you come here? Did you come to waste money?"

In a separate incident at the office, A was also found to have said, while watching a skating performance at a nearby plaza, "Did you see those skaters? Killer figures." During a meal with employee C, he reportedly said: "For women, being pretty is all that matters — pretty is the best, nothing else counts, whether it's studying or whatever, for women being pretty is everything, having a pretty face is what matters most."

During a workshop dinner, A was also found to have said to a colleague: "You pig, I wouldn't date someone like you even if you paid me."

When his remarks drew complaints, A was found to have repeatedly claimed he could not remember making them and demanded to meet with the victims.

After receiving the demotion, A filed a challenge with a civil service appeals commission, which rejected it. He then filed the lawsuit in February last year. During the trial, A's side argued that the remarks did not constitute sexual harassment and that they were either casual conversation or occurred outside working hours and therefore could not be considered a breach of his duty of diligence.

The court accepted part of A's argument, finding that three of the five alleged acts did not constitute grounds for discipline. It held that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that A had made the "killer figure" remark.

The court further held that even if the remark had been made, comments such as "killer figure" and "for women, being pretty is all that matters" did not amount to sexual harassment, and that A's repeated requests to meet with the victims did not constitute secondary victimization.

The panel said the remarks evaluating another person's appearance "were directed at a complete stranger" and that while they "may be considered frivolous and crude, they do not appear to be the kind of content that would cause sexual humiliation or disgust in those who heard them, and therefore do not constitute sexual harassment."

On the conduct the disciplinary committee had classified as secondary victimization, the court said A "had a need to confirm the circumstances of his remarks through the accounts of those around him" and that his actions were "within a sufficiently permissible range as an exercise of his right to mount a defense."

The court did find that two acts constituted grounds for discipline: telling a colleague "why did a contract worker come here," and calling another a "pig." The panel said these remarks "severely damaged the victims' dignity and self-esteem and cannot be considered minor misconduct."

Even so, the court concluded that demotion was an excessively harsh punishment and therefore unlawful, noting that "given that A was considerably intoxicated at the time, it is difficult to view the degree of fault as large."

The panel added that A "appears to have served diligently throughout his tenure" and that it had taken into account, among other factors, that colleagues had submitted petitions seeking leniency.

The ruling has not yet been finalized. Gyeonggi Province filed an appeal on June 24, and the case is now pending before Suwon High Court.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com