The court upheld the fines imposed on former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.
On Oct. 16, Seoul Western District Court, Division 61 (presiding judge Jeong Cheol-min) issued a ruling in Min Hee-jin's administrative lawsuit challenging the fines imposed by the Seoul Employment and Labor Office, maintaining the "fines decision." However, the court found that a partial reduction of the fines imposed by the labor office was necessary.
Earlier, in March the Ministry of Employment and Labor Seoul Western Branch notified former CEO Min Hee-jin that she had perpetrated workplace harassment and, as an employer, had not properly investigated workplace harassment, and imposed fines. Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act requires an employer who receives or becomes aware of a workplace harassment report to promptly conduct an objective investigation to verify the facts.
The controversy over Min Hee-jin's workplace harassment began with disclosures by a former ADOR employee, A. In Aug. of last year, A said she had been subjected to workplace harassment by former CEO Min Hee-jin. A also reported executive B for sexual harassment and workplace harassment within the company, but alleged that Min Hee-jin coached B on how to respond so B could avoid blame. She said Min He-jin protected B and sought to bury the incident, amounting to secondary harm.
In response, Min Hee-jin published a lengthy rebuttal, releasing messenger conversations with A, and A filed a lawsuit accusing Min Hee-jin of defamation and violating the Personal Information Protection Act, saying she sought a sincere apology and correction of the facts but received no response.
Particularly, A complained to labor authorities about the mental distress caused by Min Hee-jin's abusive language. The labor office later determined that Min Hee-jin's remarks constituted workplace harassment and found that Min Hee-jin did not conduct an objective investigation into executive B's workplace harassment. However, it concluded that B's alleged sexual harassment did not fall under a violation of the Equal Employment and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act and administratively closed that matter.
In response, Min Hee-jin said through the media that the facts before and after the remarks judged as workplace harassment had been wrongly recognized and that there were misunderstandings of the legal principles of the Labor Standards Act concerning workplace harassment and the duty to conduct an objective investigation. She said she would promptly submit opinions to the administrative agency and proceed with formal appeal procedures in sequence, and that she would clarify the exact facts of the complaint and clear her name.
But the court ruled in the administrative lawsuit filed by Min Hee-jin to uphold the fines decision. It found the labor office's judgment to be reasonable. The court explained that "Min Hee-jin's actions meet the elements of workplace harassment, and there are no procedural defects in the fines decision."
However, Min Hee-jin's legal representative said that in the summary trial the court found some errors in the Seoul Employment and Labor Office's fines decision and reduced the fines. He said two of four allegations were accepted and two were not, resulting in a reduction for half of the matters, meaning Min Hee-jin partially won. He added that Min Hee-jin plans to address what she sees as errors in the court's legal or factual findings in a formal trial.
Meanwhile, Min Hee-jin is also continuing legal battles with HYBE over the exercise of put options and termination of shareholder agreements involving about 26 billion won.
[Photo] OSEN DB
[OSEN]