Burden of Proof and Single Occurrences of Verbal Abuse in Claims of Workplace Harassment

Bongsoo Jung (Korean labor attorney, KangNam Labor Law Firm
I. Introduction
Since enforcement of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Act began in July 2019, many positive changes have taken place in Korean companies. These changes indicate that, instead of the traditional rigid top-down organizational culture, a new workplace culture is emerging—one that promotes individual dignity and guarantees the right to pursue happiness through professional life. In the early days following introduction of the workplace harassment law, most cases clearly constituted harassment, such as acts of violence, verbal abuse, personal errand-running for a superior by an employee, ostracism, exclusion from work, or excessive workload assignments. However, more recently, even minor issues that were not previously considered serious are being raised as workplace harassment claims, causing confusion for companies.
The case discussed in this article serves as a representative example. It involves a new employee who, while trying to adapt to the company, reported workplace harassment by a superior out of concern that the harassment might prevent their transition to a permanent position. Such incidents are likely to occur frequently in companies in the future. Particularly noteworthy issues in this case are: ① The fact that the burden of proof for the worker’s claims rests entirely on the employee, and
② Whether a single instance of verbal abuse can also be regarded as workplace harassment. We will examine the case below and review these two questions in detail.

II. Case of Workplace Harassment
1. Summary of the Case
This case involves a female employee (“the Applicant”) who joined Company A as a contract worker with the goal of being hired as a regular (permanent) employee. While working toward that goal, she alleged that she suffered harassment from her female superior (“the Respondent”), which she believed reduced her chances of being converted to regular employment. She therefore reported to the company that she had suffered workplace harassment at the hands of her superior.
On June 24, 2025, the Applicant filed a workplace harassment complaint against the Respondent through the company’s compliance hotline. The company conducted an internal investigation and notified the Applicant of the result, concluding that “no workplace harassment had occurred.” Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Applicant filed a formal complaint with the Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) in August 2025.
On September 30, 2025, the local labor office instructed the company to conduct a reinvestigation of the alleged workplace harassment and to submit the results. To ensure objectivity, the company appointed an external professional labor law firm to carry out the investigation. The certified labor attorney in charge conducted interviews for 10 days between October 18 and 25, 2025, examining both the Applicant and the Respondent, as well as four witnesses who allegedly observed the Applicant’s experience, in accordance with the Applicant’s claims submitted to the local labor office.
The Applicant’s complaint to the MOEL stated as follows:
“(1) From the day after being hired by the company as a contract worker, the Respondent began making intimidating remarks related to my potential conversion to a regular position;
(2) The Respondent failed to properly hand over work duties, causing significant inconvenience (such as excessive workload and mistakes) in performing my tasks;
(3) Despite the frequent mistakes caused by such circumstances, the Respondent, without considering the situation, coerced me into signing a “meeting note” she had unilaterally prepared, pointing out my mistakes—thereby causing an unfair disadvantage at work;
(4) The Respondent often excluded me from group meals, thereby leading acts of collective ostracism; and
(5) The Respondent constantly monitored my every move during work hours.
The Applicant claimed that all of these acts constituted workplace harassment that “exceeded the reasonable scope of work.”

2. Details and Results of the Investigation
(1) Allegation ①: Threats
1) Regarding the alleged threatening remark made regarding the potential for the Applicant’s “conversion to a regular position” during a dinner attended by the Applicant, the Respondent, and a third-party witness:
The Respondent consistently stated that she had never mentioned the word “regular position” in her work environment. The dispatched worker who attended the dinner as a witness also maintained a consistent position in line with her initial testimony given during the company’s internal investigation in June of this year. Based on these consistent statements, it appears that during the dinner involving the Applicant, the Respondent, and the witness, there was neither (①) any question by the witness about “conversion to a regular position,” nor (②) any statement by the Respondent such as, “If the Applicant leaves, you (the witness) can take her place, so hang in there until then.”
2) Regarding the alleged threatening remark made during a business trip to Daejeon:
In April of this year, while driving to another region for a business trip, the Applicant and Respondent did have a conversation related to “regular employment.” However, this conversation was limited to explaining past examples within the department—cases where some contract workers were converted to regular employees and others were not. Moreover, the Applicant had previously confirmed with a higher-ranking superior (above the Respondent) that the Respondent had no authority regarding conversion to regular employment.
[Investigator’s Opinion on Allegation ①]
It is understandable that, given her employment status (contract worker) and work environment, the Applicant may have felt both hopeful and anxious about her prospects of becoming a regular employee after hearing past examples from the Respondent. However, contrary to the Applicant’s claim, the statements of both the colleague (witness) and the superior (Respondent) do not support the conclusion that any remarks made were “threatening” to the extent that they endangered the Applicant’s position.

(2) Allegation ②: Surveillance
1) Regarding the claim that the Respondent monitored the Applicant’s computer screen from behind:
The office where the Applicant worked since her hiring operates under a “free seating” (open desk) system. The Applicant stated that the Respondent checked every detail of her work and even monitored her through dispatched workers when she was absent. According to the testimonies of both the Applicant and the Respondent, it is acknowledged that the Respondent reviewed the Applicant’s work content.
However, considering that the Applicant was still in training at the time and that her tasks were interconnected with those of dispatched employees, the Respondent’s behavior appears to have been intended to verify whether the Applicant was performing her duties correctly. Therefore, such actions cannot be considered to have exceeded “a reasonable scope of work supervision.”
2) Regarding the claim that the Respondent required the Applicant to report every 30 minutes:
Based on the statements of both parties, these 30-minute interval check-ins (or reports) were not about non-work matters but were likely requests to confirm the progress of ongoing work. If the purpose was to monitor workflow and check progress, such instructions cannot be viewed as actions beyond the “reasonable scope of work supervision.”
[Investigator’s Opinion on Allegation ②]
In reviewing the Applicant’s claims as a whole, the Respondent’s behavior during the work handover process (such as checking the monitor and requesting 30-minute updates) does not appear to have been intended as “surveillance” to reprimand the Applicant for mistakes. Rather, it reflects a managerial style characterized by close and detailed supervision—commonly known as “micromanagement.”
While this management style can make subordinates feel controlled or monitored, in this particular case: ① The Applicant was in a position that required close collaboration with dispatched employees, and ② She was in the process of receiving a work handover from the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent’s actions can be understood as part of the supervisory guidance of a subordinate and do not exceed the “reasonable scope of work supervision.”

(3) Allegation ③: Leading Collective Ostracism – Having Meals While Excluding the Applicant
The Applicant claimed that the Respondent led acts of ostracism by deliberately excluding her from group meals. However, based on the statements of Witnesses 1, 2, and 3, as well as the Respondent’s own explanation (that she had personally mentioned she was on a diet, etc.), there are no circumstances indicating that meals were taken in a manner constituting ostracism by the Respondent. Therefore, this allegation is difficult to acknowledge.
[Investigator’s Opinion on Allegation ③] After reviewing all statements and the materials submitted by the Applicant (including her diary), there was no evidence found to substantiate the Applicant’s claim of “collective ostracism.”

(4) Allegation ④: Work-Related Disadvantage (Forcing the Applicant to Sign a “Meeting Note”)
The Applicant claimed that the “meeting note,” which became the actual reason for her workplace harassment complaint, had been signed under coercion by the Respondent. Meanwhile, the Respondent stated that she explained the purpose of the meeting note as being for “work improvement.” Thus, the statements of both parties conflicted. Although there was a difference in perception between the parties regarding the atmosphere of the meeting, a review of the Applicant’s meeting record shows that certain parts marked as “to be reviewed later” corresponded with the Respondent’s statement, suggesting that the meeting atmosphere did not appear coercive.
[Investigator’s Opinion on Allegation ④]
Based on the testimonies above, it seems that the Applicant may have misunderstood this particular meeting as being different from the usual brief verbal meetings with the Respondent because, on this occasion, a “meeting card” was used. Given that the meeting took place about three months after her hiring, it is likely that the Applicant mistook it for an evaluation conducted during her “probation period.”
However, since the Applicant’s employment contract explicitly stated that “the probationary period shall be three months from the start date of employment,” and the meeting in question occurred on June 17 (after the three-month period had ended), and the Respondent had repeatedly explained during the first meeting that “this is not an evaluation but a discussion for work improvement,” it is reasonable to infer that the “meeting note” was not prepared for the purpose of evaluating or terminating the Applicant’s contract. Therefore, due to these circumstances, the act of having the employee sign the “meeting note” does not appear to exceed the “reasonable scope of work supervision.”

(5) Allegation ⑤: Failure to Conduct Proper Work Handover (Failure to Provide Adequate Training or Guidance After the Applicant’s Hiring, Causing Significant Work Disruption)
After comprehensively reviewing the statements of the Applicant, witnesses, and the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent was not neglectful in handing over the Applicant’s work assignments upon her employment. The Respondent distributed a manual she had prepared herself to both the Applicant and the witnesses and conducted the handover accordingly.
However, the Applicant asserted that she could not perform her duties properly due to the Respondent’s inadequate feedback during the handover process and that, around mid-May, the Respondent raised her voice, saying, “Because of you, [the witness (co-worker)] cannot go home.” The Applicant also claimed that, around the same time, the Respondent loudly reprimanded her during work. According to the Applicant’s submitted materials (her diary) and witness statements, these incidents were found to have occurred.
[Investigator’s Opinion on Allegation ⑤]
While the Applicant’s claim that she suffered due to the Respondent’s failure to carry out a proper handover is not substantiated—given that the Respondent distributed manuals and actually conducted a handover—the investigation found, based on witness interviews, that the Respondent did speak to the Applicant in an irritated tone during work hours.
Specifically, witnesses stated that the Respondent’s voice was loud enough for others (including the witness) to look toward the Applicant and Respondent’s direction two times, and that the witness reacted by saying she felt “uncomfortable.” Considering that this occurred in an open office space where multiple employees were working and that the Respondent’s raised voice caused visible discomfort to bystanders, it is determined that such behavior exceeded the “reasonable scope of work supervision.”

3. Determination of Workplace Harassment
Of the Applicant’s allegations—① threatening remarks, ② failure to conduct a proper work handover, ③ work-related disadvantage, ④ collective ostracism, and ⑤ surveillance—none were found to constitute workplace harassment that exceeded the reasonable scope of work supervision. However, although not claimed by the Applicant herself, the investigation revealed that the Respondent’s act of loudly reprimanding the Applicant during the course of work did constitute, in part, an act of workplace harassment.

III. Review of Key Issues Identified through the Case
1. Burden of Proof in Workplace Harassment Complaints
The burden of proof in workplace harassment cases lies with the employee who claims to have been harassed. Problems arise in cases where only the employee’s testimony exists or where there is only witness testimony without supporting evidence. Due to the often covert nature of workplace harassment—frequently occurring without direct witnesses or physical evidence—the issue of proof becomes critically important during investigation. When a workplace harassment investigation is conducted, the reporting employee must prove that harassment actually occurred, while the alleged perpetrator must prove either that the alleged acts did not occur or that such acts do not constitute workplace harassment.
If concrete materials such as emails, messenger logs, mobile recordings, or CCTV footage exist, the facts can be objectively verified. However, in the absence of such evidence, investigations rely primarily on the statements of the parties and witnesses. In such cases, even if the alleged victim’s statement is detailed and specific, it will not be recognized as fact without corroborating evidence. Of course, it is difficult to categorically state that workplace harassment cannot be recognized based solely on the alleged victim’s testimony. If surrounding circumstances or additional factors support the credibility of the alleged victim’s statement and there is reasonable probability for the statement to be accepted as true, workplace harassment can be acknowledged. Therefore, questioning witnesses who directly observed the incident is essential.
Regarding how to assess the credibility of such statements, the courts have held that: “The court must evaluate the objective rationality, specificity, and consistency of each statement, carefully compare the relationships between those involved, and assess the credibility and evidentiary value of each testimony before determining whether the plaintiff has proven each alleged act of wrongdoing.”
More specifically, precedents indicate that judgment is based on factors such as:
① Whether the employer induced or coerced specific answers during the testimony process;
② The specificity and level of detail in the testimony;
③ The consistency between the alleged victim’s statement and witnesses’ statements; and
④ The existence or absence of any motive to provide false testimony.

2. Whether a Single Instance of Verbal Abuse Constitutes Workplace Harassment
Under the definition of workplace harassment in the Korean Labor Standards Act, even a single or one-time act by a superior can constitute workplace harassment. However, in judicial precedents, the continuity and repetition of such conduct have been considered important elements when determining the unlawfulness of acts infringing upon an employee’s dignity.
For example:
① In a case where a superior’s remarks became an issue leading to disciplinary action, the court reviewed whether various forms of conduct amounted to workplace harassment. Among them, the superior’s insulting comments to employees such as “You all went to college, didn’t you? How can you not even do this?” and “A college graduate should at least be able to do this much” were not regarded as workplace harassment, since they were one-time remarks.
Conversely, ② In another case involving workplace harassment and assault between senior and junior social workers, the court recognized the crime of inflicting bodily injury under the Criminal Act, considering that the senior’s persistent and repeated verbal abuse over approximately four months had caused the junior social worker to develop depressive disorder.

IV. Conclusion
Since introduction of the amendments to the Labor Standards Act that together form the Workplace Harassment Prevention Act, many forms of obvious and conventional workplace harassment have disappeared. This change has significantly increased awareness and understanding of workplace harassment among both employers and employees, contributing to the improvement of workplace culture and the development of a working environment that values dignity and the pursuit of employee well-being.
However, remnants of the outdated patriarchal culture still persist in many workplaces, leading to conflicts between the older generation and the MZ generation of workers. The case discussed above could be seen as a very minor instance of harassment—something unimaginable during early implementation of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Act. Yet, such cases have now become common examples of workplace harassment that many companies experience today. Therefore, companies must provide a better and safer workplace through continuous education and awareness about workplace harassment. At the same time, employees should recognize that they themselves can become either perpetrators or victims of workplace harassment and should reflect on whether their attitudes and behaviors in the workplace are appropriate for a healthy organizational culture.