Workplace Harassment in Korea, Part 7: "Disadvantageous Treatment"

This is Part 7 of our series on workplace harassment under Korean labor law. Part 1 covered the basic legal definition. Part 2 covered the employer's investigation duty. Part 3 covered protecting the affected employee during the investigation and introduced the prohibition on disadvantageous treatment. Part 4 covered reporting channels. Part 5 covered the reasonable scope of work. Part 6 covered abuse of the reporting system. This post takes a closer look at one specific duty Part 3 introduced but did not fully explore: what actually counts as prohibited disadvantageous treatment, and what does not.

The Legal Basis

Under the Labor Standards Act, an employer must not dismiss or take any other disadvantageous action against an employee who reports workplace harassment, or against the affected employee, on the grounds of that report or the harm claimed. As covered in Part 3 of this series, this is the only provision in the entire workplace harassment framework backed directly by criminal punishment.

The statute itself does not define "disadvantageous treatment" with a fixed list. So it is important to look at specific cases and precedents to where the line is being drawn.

Case One: A Transfer That Crossed the Line

In the first case, the employer transferred the affected employee to a different workplace during the process of addressing the harassment complaint, citing a staffing shortage as the reason. The transfer was carried out without giving real consideration to the affected employee's own circumstances or preferences.

The manual treated this as disadvantageous treatment. A staffing shortage may be a genuine operational fact, but citing it does not, by itself, excuse an employer from the underlying duty to weigh the affected employee's actual situation before moving that employee elsewhere. A transfer that functions as a burden on the victim, rather than a protective or neutral step, falls within the prohibition even when the employer can point to a business reason.

Case Two: A Transfer That Did Not

In the second case, the employer disciplined the perpetrator and intended to transfer that person away from the affected employee's workplace. Internal circumstances made the transfer impossible to carry out. With the affected employee's own consent, the employer instead kept the perpetrator working at the original location alongside the affected employee.

The manual did not treat this as disadvantageous treatment. The key difference was consent. The employer did not impose an unwanted arrangement on the affected employee. It sought and obtained that employee's agreement to a workable alternative, after disciplining the perpetrator, rather than leaving the affected employee to absorb an unaddressed risk.

The Real Distinction: Whose Burden, and Whose Choice

Read together, these two cases point to the same underlying question that ran through Part 3's discussion of protective measures during an investigation: whose interests does the arrangement actually serve, and did the affected employee have a genuine say in it.

A change that shifts inconvenience, disruption, or risk onto the affected employee, justified after the fact by a business reason, tends to look like disadvantageous treatment. A change that the affected employee actually agreed to, particularly one adopted only after the perpetrator has already been disciplined, tends not to.

This does not mean employee consent is a blanket shield for every decision. But it does mean that skipping the conversation with the affected employee, and presenting a transfer or reassignment as already decided, is where employers run the most legal risk.

What This Means for Employers in Korea

Before making any change to the affected employee's role, workplace, or duties in connection with a harassment matter, ask the employee first, and document the answer.

If the ideal remedy, such as transferring the perpetrator, is not practically available, say so and propose an alternative. Get the affected employee's actual agreement to whatever alternative is proposed.

Series Note

This Part 7 covered the prohibition on disadvantageous treatment under Article 76-3, Paragraph 6 of the Labor Standards Act, using new case examples from the July 2026 revised MOEL manual. It follows Part 1 (the legal definition), Part 2 (the investigation duty), Part 3 (victim protection during the investigation), Part 4 (how reports reach the company), Part 5 (the reasonable scope of work), and Part 6 (abuse of the reporting system).

---

This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific workplace harassment issue in Korea, please consult qualified Korean attorney.

For inquiries, please contact sjchun@seoulcounsel.com.