Recent court decisions on workplace harassment and sexual harassment

At a glance

• Korean courts have broadened the definition of workplace and sexual harassment to include social media misuse and inappropriate comments.
• Sexual harassment now includes unwelcome remarks, physical contact, and online behaviour that causes discomfort, not just humiliation or disgust.
• Workplace harassment can be established through persistent unwanted behaviour, even without a direct reporting line.
• Courts recognise 'superiority in relationship' based on factors like age, job status, or influence, not just formal rank.
• These rulings lower the threshold for proving harassment and offer clearer guidance for employers and employees.

---

This article has been reproduced with the permission of the authors David M. Waters, Tae Sik Park, Jung-Lae Lee, Da Hae Ku, Daeyoung Kim, Hye Weon Park at Kim & Chang. 

As workplace harassment and sexual harassment cases gain increasing attention in Korea, recent court decisions provide valuable practical takeaways for recognising workplace harassment and sexual harassment.

Case one: Expanding the scope of workplace and sexual harassment

(Daejeon High Court, April 24, 2025, affirmed by Supreme Court)

The court ruled that acts such as uploading a coworker’s photo to social media without permission or broadcasting a coworker live on social media constitute workplace harassment or sexual harassment. This is a significant case regarding the use of social media in the workplace.

Acts recognised as sexual harassment:

• Uploading a coworker’s photo to a live social media feed and showing comments implying a romantic relationship.
• Sending another employee a screenshot of the employee’s SNS profile photo with remarks such as 'You’re pretty' or 'Someone might steal your identity.'
• Asking a colleague to remove their mask while making appearance-related comments like “You’re handsome, do you have a girlfriend?”
• Making body-related remarks such as “You’ll gain weight, put that [food] down.”
• Blocking a female employee’s path and insisting on physical contact (eg, a fist bump) while grabbing her wrist.

Acts recognised as workplace harassment:

• Attempting to share a taxi after a company dinner despite a coworker’s clear refusal.
• Broadcasting a coworker’s face without consent during a live social media stream on night shift.

Case two: ‘Sexual humiliation or disgust’ in sexual harassment case

(Daejeon High Court, April 24, 2025, affirmed by Supreme Court)

The harasser argued that sexual harassment could not be established since the victim reported feeling 'discomfort' rather than 'sexual humiliation or disgust.' The court rejected this argument, clarifying that sexual harassment in the workplace does not require the victim to experience sexual humiliation or disgust, and it suffices that the conduct caused discomfort through unwelcome physical contact or remarks.

The court further differentiated the term 'sexual humiliation or disgust' in the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act from 'sexual shame,' which appears in the criminal context under the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes. This decision lowers the threshold for proving sexual harassment, focusing on the victim’s sense of discomfort rather than emotional extremes.

Case three: Clarifying 'superiority in position or relationship'

(Daejeon High Court, August 22, 2024, affirmed by Supreme Court)

The court ruled that 'Superiority of Position' (one of the elements to establish a workplace harassment claim) is recognised when an individual exploits structural superiority in terms of rank or position within the company, even without a direct chain of command.

'Superiority of Relationship' can be established not only through workplace position but also through effective superiority arising from:

• Innate or acquired attributes such as age, education, gender, or regional ties.
• Differences in workplace competence, like length of service or job knowledge.
• Influence based on membership in labour organisations (eg, union or labour council) or departmental power (eg, Human Resources).
• Differences between regular and non-regular employment status.
• De facto superiority created by the harasser’s use of the victim’s mistakes or confidential information, or through excessive, obsessive demands and problem-causing behaviour.

Specifically, the court recognised de facto superiority in meeting the element of 'superiority in a relationship' due to the harasser’s sustained behaviour of raising issues with the victims and sending defamatory emails visible to other employees in the company. This ruling demonstrates the court’s tendency to interpret superiority in a relationship broadly.