Disciplinary Action for Public Reprimand of Subordinate Overturned: Court Rules It Unlawful

Reprimand Issued for 30-Minute Questioning in Front of Junior Staff
Court: "No Demeaning Remarks or Raised Voice Detected"

It has been ruled by the court that disciplining an employee solely for reprimanding a subordinate in a public place is unlawful.

On January 4, Yonhap News, citing the legal community, reported that the 13th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Jin Hyunseop) ruled in favor of plaintiff A in November of last year in a lawsuit filed against the Ministry of Justice to overturn a reprimand.

In June 2024, A, who was serving as the head of a branch office of the Immigration Service under the Ministry of Justice, received a reprimand for allegedly violating the duty of maintaining dignity under the National Public Service Act by treating team leader-level employee B in a demeaning manner.

The incident arose in July 2023, when B was handling a case involving foreign sailors who had disembarked without permission. A took issue with the fact that B had prepared and issued a review decision document without summoning the sailors for questioning. In the office, with four junior employees present or listening, A questioned B for about 30 minutes about the reasons for not conducting a separate investigation and the details of the handling process. This was cited as grounds for disciplinary action, on the basis that it constituted a public reprimand.

However, the court determined that there was no legitimate reason for the disciplinary action. The court found that, according to social norms, it was difficult to conclude that A had raised their voice to an intimidating level, and that confirming the handling process as the branch head fell within the scope of official duties.

Based on an audio recording, the court stated, "It does not appear that A made any remarks that would demean B or infringe upon his dignity, such as speaking down to him or making derogatory comments," and added, "From beginning to end, A spoke consistently in a relatively calm tone."

Regarding the reprimand in a public place, the court explained, "There is room to interpret that the questions were asked in the presence of junior employees for educational purposes related to work."

B claimed that he had suggested three times, "Let's go into the branch head's office and talk," but this was not accepted. He also claimed that he subsequently received medication for depression, but this claim was also not accepted. The court found that B had only briefly made such a suggestion and did not appear to have made any special effort to avoid the conversation in a public setting. Considering that B had a pre-existing history of depression, the court determined that it was difficult to recognize a direct causal relationship with this incident.