Teacher Bullies Child's Homeroom Teacher, Saying "You Have No Manners"... Court Rules It "Infringement of Educational Activities"

"Exceeded the Limits of Legitimate Expression of Opinion"

A court has ruled that a special education completion order imposed on a high school teacher who aggressively questioned a homeroom teacher over an elementary school child's performance assessment result was lawful.

According to the legal community on February 22, the 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kang Jaewon) ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by high school teacher A against the head of the Northern Seoul Office of Education, seeking to revoke the special education disposition.

A, dissatisfied with the results of the performance assessment of A's elementary school child, is known to have hurled abusive and insulting remarks at homeroom teacher B. In response, B filed a report on the infringement of educational activities, stating in substance that "A unjustly criticized the legitimate performance assessment result without any basis, invoked being a high school teacher and age, and made remarks such as 'You young ones have no manners' and 'You should build your character first, junior,' thereby committing acts that infringed on educational activities."

Afterward, the Regional Committee for the Protection of Teachers' Rights held a deliberation process in which both A and B appeared and presented their respective views. Ultimately, A was notified of a disposition requiring the completion of 12 hours of special education at an institution designated by the superintendent of education for infringement of educational activities.

In the deliberation, A admitted to having repeatedly used phrases such as "You really have no manners," but maintained that the conduct occurred in the course of a heated verbal dispute triggered by B's provocative remarks. A further argued that A had to take sick leave due to bipolar disorder as a result of the incident, and filed suit claiming that the Regional Committee for the Protection of Teachers' Rights had deviated from and abused its discretion.

The court, however, did not accept this argument. The bench acknowledged that A had made remarks such as "You should build your character first, junior," and found that B had made sufficient efforts and taken necessary measures to resolve the situation, including providing detailed explanations of the grounds for the performance assessment results. The court also pointed out that, despite this, A repeatedly insisted, without any legitimate basis, that the victim teacher's assessment was wrong in order to force A's own wishes through.

The court went on to state, "It can be seen that A's conduct clearly exceeded the proper manner and limits of expressing legitimate opinions to the extent of hindering the teacher's educational activities," adding, "B likely felt considerable humiliation and professional confusion, and in fact received psychiatric treatment."