Seoul court upholds pay cut over 'pretty person' remark in workplace sexual harassment case
The court upheld the disciplinary action after dismissing the plaintiff's argument that "pretty" itself does not constitute sexual harassment and that he did not make the remark with sexual intent or to judge the victim's looks.
Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul
NEWS1
A court has upheld a one-month pay cut for a supervisor who reportedly sexually harassed a subordinate by suggesting that a “pretty person” should sit next to the boss during a meal with the head of the company, according to legal sources on Wednesday.
The Seoul Administrative Court ruled against the plaintiff on July 16 in a lawsuit — filed against the National Labor Relations Commission — seeking to overturn a retrial ruling that denied him relief from disciplinary action.
The plaintiff is the planning director of a dance troupe under an arts organization. He received a one-month pay cut from the commission after a subordinate reported him for sexual harassment and workplace bullying.
The disciplinary action stemmed from a remark that the plaintiff made to an employee on the planning team during a lunch with the company head: “A pretty person should sit next to the boss.”
The regional labor commission determined that the remark alone was enough to justify the one-month pay cut.
The plaintiff had also reportedly made inappropriate comments about reduced hours due to child care to a worker and even shouted at the same employee over work-related matters. Those allegations, however, were excluded from the disciplinary case after the plaintiff filed a petition for relief with the commission.
After the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed his request for a retrial, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit in September 2025.
He argued that the word “pretty” itself does not constitute sexual harassment and that the remark was not made with sexual intent or to evaluate someone’s appearance. He also claimed that during the meal, employees were unsure where to sit, so he made the comment — which he described as self-deprecating — to ease the awkward atmosphere.
The court disagreed.
“The worker could have taken this as a direct instruction to sit next to the boss because of her appearance,” it said. “That kind of remark evaluates or objectifies the victim’s appearance and is the kind of act that would make an average person feel sexually humiliated and disgusted.”
Additionally, the court noted that the remark could reasonably be interpreted as alluding to entertaining the boss, not merely suggesting that the recipient sit next to them.
“For sexual harassment to be established, the perpetrator does not necessarily need to have had a sexual motive or intent,” the court said. As it “recognizes [the plaintiff’s] remark as workplace sexual harassment, it is difficult to see the disciplinary measure as excessive.”
BY JUNG SI-NAE [lee.jian@joongang.co.kr]
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
