Professor's "Negligence" During COVID Spread... Court Rules "Salary Reduction Appropriate"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A university professor who was penalized with a salary reduction for allegedly conducting lectures negligently during the COVID-19 pandemic filed an appeal lawsuit, but the court did not accept it.

According to the legal community on the 16th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 13 (Presiding Judge Park Jeongdae) recently ruled against Professor A in the first trial of the 'Cancellation of 3-month Salary Reduction Disciplinary Action' lawsuit filed against the president of the university to which he belongs.

Previously, Professor A received "complaints" from students for three courses he was in charge of during the 2020-2021 period when COVID-19 was spreading. According to the school's investigation, Professor A was found to have assigned grades without conducting student counseling or falsely entered counseling records, receiving approximately 4.5 million KRW under the name of student guidance expenses. He was also investigated for not fulfilling the number of lecture days for non-face-to-face classes and assigning grades without evaluation procedures.

The school, after going through the general disciplinary committee, imposed a 3-month salary reduction disciplinary action on Professor A on November 5, 2021. Professor A filed an administrative lawsuit in objection to the related disciplinary action.

During the trial, Professor A appealed, stating, "At that time, my father's illness rapidly worsened, and I also heard that my son, who was serving in the military, was subjected to harsh treatment, so I was in a state of confusion that should be considered." Regarding receiving student guidance expenses without counseling, he argued, "When submitting the activity report, I had planned to complete the related counseling during the subsequent summer vacation period. Due to administrative convenience, I inevitably backdated the dates."

The first trial court ruled in favor of the school, stating, "The obligation of sincerity regarding student guidance, lectures, and grade evaluation was violated in each class. All disciplinary reasons related to the action are recognized." The court added, "Personal circumstances alone cannot exempt the obligation to conduct counseling," and "At the very least, the school should have been reported to afterward and measures discussed."

The fact that all students were given an 'A+' grade without procedures such as attendance verification and submission of deliverables was also a basis. Professor A claimed, "I reflected the expectation that students would achieve excellent results related to future practical training in advance," but the court judged that this violated the class operation standards and grade evaluation guidelines.

The court stated, "'Academic performance is evaluated by considering exam scores, attendance days, assignment completion, and learning attitude for each subject' according to the university's regulations, as well as the dictionary meaning of 'grades,' which refers to 'results after completing a task' and 'evaluated results of learned knowledge, skills, and attitudes,' contradicting the claim."

Since Professor A did not appeal, this ruling became final as is.