A law firm that unilaterally notified a female lawyer returning from maternity and parental leave of her dismissal filed a lawsuit after the Central Labor Commission (CLC) ruled the dismissal unfair, but lost in the second trial following the first trial. The law firm argued 'custom' during the trial process, but the court did not accept it.
According to the legal community on the 7th, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 10-1 (Presiding Judges Oh Hyun-gyu, Kim Yoo-jin, Ha Tae-han) ruled on the 19th that K Law Firm lost the appeal to cancel the unfair dismissal relief retrial ruling filed against the chairman of the Central Labor Commission (CLC).
Attorney A, who worked at K Law Firm, took about three months of parental leave for her first child starting in November 2020, and then took about three months of maternity leave after giving birth to her second child around the end of January 2021. The total period of leave was about six months.
However, about two weeks before her scheduled return to work, Attorney A suddenly received a dismissal notice. The representative of K Law Firm sent Attorney A a text message stating that "the actual employment relationship ended when you left due to preparing for childbirth." Ultimately, her reinstatement was canceled.
In response, Attorney A filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Seoul Regional Labor Commission in June 2021. The Seoul Regional Labor Commission accepted the claim and ordered "Attorney A to be reinstated to her original position within 30 days and to be paid the equivalent wages she would have earned if she had worked normally." K Law Firm requested the CLC to dismiss this decision, but after the request was rejected, they filed a lawsuit.
During the trial, K Law Firm argued that "terminating the existing employment relationship upon a female lawyer’s childbirth is a long-standing custom in the legal profession," and claimed that "other female lawyers also resigned from the company immediately after childbirth."
However, both the first and second trial courts rejected these claims. The appellate court stated, "It is reasonable to see that the plaintiff unilaterally dismissed Attorney A," and pointed out, "There is no evidence to recognize the existence of such a custom in the legal profession as claimed by the plaintiff." Furthermore, the court emphasized, "Even if there were precedents, from the perspective of female lawyers, such a custom is unilaterally disadvantageous, causing only burdens such as career interruption and employment insecurity," adding, "This directly contradicts the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on gender equality in employment and the Act on the Support for Work-Family Balance, so its validity cannot be recognized."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
