Court Rules Dismissal of Air Force Civilian Employee for Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Power Is an Abuse of Discretion

Sexually Harassing Remarks Such as "Provoking Soldiers' Sexual Curiosity"

The court has ruled that although some of the misconduct allegations against an Air Force civilian employee—who repeatedly made sexually harassing remarks such as "provoking soldiers' sexual curiosity" to subordinates and engaged in so-called "gapjil" (abuse of power)—were acknowledged, the dismissal was considered excessively severe.

Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on March 8, the Seoul Administrative Court's 14th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Lee Sangdeok) ruled in favor of the plaintiff on December 18 of last year in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A, a Grade 5 civilian employee, against the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to cancel the dismissal order.

Mr. A, who worked as the head of a certain Air Force center, was dismissed in July 2023 after multiple acts of misconduct—including sexual harassment and abuse of power—were recognized.

According to the Air Force, Mr. A told a subordinate who was about to leave work, "Wearing clothes like that can provoke soldiers' sexual curiosity." He also said to an employee wearing a spinal brace, "It looks like you're wearing a corset." Other remarks included, "Find a divorced general," and "Use your charms to get a new radiator."

In addition, disciplinary reasons included hinting at contract renewal disadvantages to fixed-term civilian employees, restricting department members’ access to the administrative office and use of the shower room for his own convenience, and requiring the unification of computer passwords for personal use—acts commonly referred to as "gapjil."

The court acknowledged some of the main misconduct, such as certain sexual harassment and abuse of authority, but did not accept other disciplinary reasons, stating that some facts were not substantiated or could not be clearly defined as abuse of power.

The court stated, "Given that department members suffered considerable psychological distress over a long period due to Mr. A's coercive behavior, the defendant's judgment that severe disciplinary action was unavoidable is understandable," but added that dismissal was considered excessively heavy.

This is because the sexually harassing remarks were limited to verbal conduct without physical contact, and the degree of misconduct was relatively minor compared to other cases involving criminal offenses or severe verbal abuse. The court also cited that the objectives of protecting victims could sufficiently be achieved through measures such as reassignment or transfer.

It was further recognized as a favorable circumstance that Mr. A had served diligently for 23 years without disciplinary action and had received several commendations.

The court ruled, "It is unlawful and beyond the scope of discretion to immediately deprive Mr. A of his civilian employee status without giving any opportunity to recognize and correct his wrongdoing."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.