An employee at the Seoul metropolitan government who forced a female subordinate (civil worker on a non-fixed term contract) assisting his tasks to undergo sexual humiliation by taking her to a “phallus café” opposed to the disciplinary measures against him and filed a lawsuit to cancel the measure. But in the end, he lost.

On August 29, according to the coverage by the Kyunghyang Shinmun, Administrative Department 4 at the Seoul High Court (chief judge Gweon Gi-hun) dismissed the claim by A, an employee at the Seoul metropolitan government who appealed to personnel measures by the mayor of Seoul, and upheld the decision by the judges in the first appellate trial. A did not appeal further, so the decision was finalized last month, three years after the city of Seoul first determined the disciplinary measures.

A, an employee of the B Park Project Management Office under the Green Seoul Bureau in the Seoul metropolitan government, went to an arboretum on a business trip in November 2017 with C, an employee who worked with him. Before returning to the office, A took C to a “phallus café” near the arboretum. Nearly everything at the café, from the entrance to the tableware and interior design, was designed in the shape of a penis.

C, who was sexually humiliated and disgusted, told her colleagues at work of her experience after she returned to the office. The city of Seoul released A from his position and ordered a two-month suspension in November 2018. The fact that he bought C underwear when the two visited a major retailer to purchase items needed for a workshop in December 2017 was included in the grounds for the disciplinary measure. C had stored the underwear she received from A untouched in her office and submitted it when filing the report against A.

A filed a claim to cancel the disciplinary measure at the appeals commission and the commission withdrew the original measure and instead ordered a pay cut for three months. The commission claimed that although strict punishment was necessary for sexual harassment in the workplace, A’s unlawful behavior was highlighted amidst conflicts between A and C concerning the division of tasks.

A opposed the decision and filed a lawsuit against the city to cancel the personnel measure. However, the bench in the first trial dismissed A’s argument. According to the judges, there was no evidence to prove A’s argument that the director of the management office suggested that they stop by the café in question, and circumstantial evidence suggested that A intentionally bought C the underwear. The judge said, “The pay cut on the plaintiff (A) was reasonable according to the standard for disciplinary measures when considering the benefits to public interest, such as the establishment of discipline in public office and the prevention of sexual harassment,” and added, “The pay cut, which was based on the lightest standard set by the standard for disciplinary measures, does not seem to lack significant justification based on social norms.”

The judge continued and said, “The actions by the plaintiff were enough to make C feel sexual humiliation, and from the position of C, who assisted the plaintiff in his tasks, she was not able to properly appeal to his actions.” The judge also said, “What’s more, we could not find any circumstances to suggest that C received a sincere apology from the plaintiff, so the action by the city of Seoul was not excessive.” The bench in the appellate trial also dismissed A’s appeal saying, “The recognition of facts and the judgment in the first trial were recognized as just.”

However, despite the court’s ruling, the disciplinary measure against A was, in the end, never implemented, because A retired during the appellate trial. An official from the Seoul metropolitan government explained, “Although it is impossible for a civil servant to be dismissed at his request when undergoing a trial, we cannot stop the retirement of a person who has reached retirement age, for this is a rightful condition for retirement.” However, he added, “The rehabilitation of the individual will be difficult.”