The Supreme Court ruled that the act of an employer who forced a visually impaired worker to work early in the morning after returning from parental leave is illegal.
According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Supreme Court's 1st Division (Chief Justice Shin Sook-hee) upheld the original ruling in July, which favored teacher A in a lawsuit against the B Foundation, a social welfare corporation operating a community living facility for the disabled in Pohang, North Gyeongsang Province, confirming the invalidation of the dismissal.
A, a visually impaired person who has been raising a daughter alone, worked as a social rehabilitation teacher at the B Foundation facility from January 2019. A took parental leave from May 2020 until April of the following year, but as the end of the leave approached, the B Foundation instructed A to "work from 4 p.m. until 1 a.m. the next day, including a one-hour break, and additionally to work from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. as overtime."
A started working at the same time as prior to the leave because no adjustment was made regarding working hours until the end of the leave. The facility manager then prevented A from working, claiming it was not the designated working hours. The B Foundation sent A a warning letter 18 times, stating that A had "absent without permission" by not reporting to work at the set hours without submitting a valid reason, and then terminated A's employment.
In response, A filed a lawsuit claiming the termination was unjust, and the court ruled in favor of A.
The first trial court stated, "The working hours directed by the B Foundation overlap mostly with the times A needs to care for her daughter, and particularly, the quitting time of 1 a.m. is impossible to use public transportation, and it is also difficult to utilize transportation means for the disabled." It also noted, "A has previously reported that the facility manager of the facility operated by the B Foundation sexually assaulted disabled women," indicating that "it appears the B Foundation retaliated against A's report with unreasonable working hours to block her return to work."
Afterwards, the B Foundation appealed, but both the second trial and the Supreme Court found no issues with the first trial's judgment. The Supreme Court stated, "There was no error that could have affected the ruling, such as a legal misunderstanding regarding the judgment that the B Foundation's work directives violated the Act on Gender Equality in Employment and Supports for Work-Family Reconciliation, and the judgment that the termination of A, who refused those work directives, is invalid."