"Failure to Clearly State Grounds in Expulsion Decision Process"
Expulsion Itself Not Clearly Invalid... Partial Victory
The court has ruled that the expulsion of a student, who was disciplined for making sexually harassing remarks and threatening teachers at a school festival, must be revoked. The court cited procedural flaws, including the school's failure to clearly specify the grounds for expulsion.
On April 27, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 2 (Presiding Judge Ko Eunseol) announced that it had ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Student A, who was expelled in their second year of high school, seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the expulsion against the school principal.
Student A was expelled in September 2023, during their second year at the high school, on the grounds of "failure to observe basic conduct."
During the trial, the school explained that it decided on expulsion because Student A and others engaged in threatening behavior, such as kicking the auditorium door during a school festival, and acted violently by lying down or throwing chairs to demand front-row seats during a performance.
The school also cited as evidence the results of an anonymous survey conducted among students after the festival, which included responses stating that Student A "made sexually harassing remarks by mentioning specific body parts of other female students on stage" and "jeered and used abusive language toward friends with less attractive appearances."
In August of the same year, Student A had been suspended for five days for violating the school rule prohibiting the wearing of non-uniform clothing or slippers, claiming an ankle injury and wearing Crocs. This was an aggravated punishment, as Student A had previously received a five-day community service penalty in their first year.
Additionally, the school's regulations specified that if a student committed a corresponding act again after serving a suspension, expulsion would be possible. Based on this, the school initiated disciplinary procedures, had Student A and their parents attend a special guidance committee, and then decided on expulsion.
However, the court found that the school committed procedural errors by failing to clearly present the grounds for expulsion to Student A during the decision-making process.
The court pointed out that the expulsion notice given to Student A only stated "failure to observe basic conduct," and that when Student A's parents protested, claiming there had been no sexual harassment, the school limited the grounds for review to "failure to follow the teacher's seating instructions."
The court further explained, "The contents of the other students' survey responses and the reasons for disciplinary action cited by the defendant were not clearly distinguished in the discussions, and the grounds for expulsion were only organized belatedly. Because the specific facts leading to the expulsion were not detailed, Student A's ability to exercise their right to defense was substantially impaired throughout the lawsuit."
The court also found fault with the fact that the special guidance committee did not meet the required quorum. The school's regulations required a two-thirds majority of the total committee members for disciplinary decisions, but at the time, only four out of seven attending members voted in favor of expulsion, which the court found to be unlawful.
However, the court did not find the expulsion itself to be objectively and clearly invalid. It noted that there was objective basis for the disciplinary process and related reasons, and that a hearing was conducted for Student A.
The court concluded that although there were some procedural flaws, these were cured since Student A appeared before the committee and exercised their right to defense. Therefore, the court found the expulsion not to be unlawful and dismissed the claims for invalidation and cancellation.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
