Monthly Contributions

Can Repeated Profanity Not Directed at a Specific Person Constitute Workplace Harassment?

Bongsoo Jung (Labor attorney, KangNam Labor Law Firm)

I. Introduction

 Workplace harassment refers to an act, or acts, by an employer or superior who, using his or her superiority in workplace position or relationship, causes physical or mental suffering towards another employee or worsens the working environment (Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act). This case is introduced because the key issues were: (1) whether repeated severe profanity uttered alone, without being directed at a specific employee, can constitute workplace harassment; and (2) if workplace harassment is established, what level of disciplinary action would be appropriate and how the company should restore workplace order.

 The complainant alleged that, at least ten times within the most recent six months, the Membership Management Team Leader (hereinafter the “respondent”) engaged in violent verbal conduct in the office, repeatedly using profanity, vulgar expressions, and shouting loudly after ending phone calls, openly in front of employees who were lower in rank or subordinate to him. This article reviews the specific facts, determines whether workplace harassment was established based on those facts, and examines the appropriate level of discipline for the harassment and the measures the company should take to prevent recurrence.

II. Confirmation of Facts

1. Investigation of the Complainant

“On September 18, 2025, from around 9:30 yesterday morning (it was already happening when I arrived at work), the respondent loudly used extremely harsh profanity in the office throughout the morning.” (It was very severe.) “After the respondent left for outside work, I thought it over and felt that Witness 1, Witness 2, and Witness 3 would also have perceived it as verbal violence, and that the office work atmosphere had become so hostile that this was truly unacceptable. I therefore shared the situation with another team leader.” “He repeatedly said the words ‘Andrew, that f*cking bastard’ at least ten times over 30 minutes. I am raising this matter not simply because I alone did not want to hear it, but because it negatively affects the company’s reputation in the eyes of student interns and because the working atmosphere on the second floor became frozen, disrupting our work.”   

2. Interview of Witnesses

(1) Witness 1 (Intern)

 The respondent “often uses expressions such as ‘f*ck’ and ‘that’s bullsh*t’ after ending phone calls. I am in the position of hearing the respondent’s calls the most, and particularly when an issue arises during calls with outside companies (customers), he makes the above remarks several times a day if he becomes upset. For example, after saying something like, ‘So what if you’re an official, f*ck,’ he often leaves the office to smoke and then comes back in. He frequently uses words such as ‘f*ck,’ ‘f*cking,’ and ‘crazy bastard.’”

(2) Witness 2 (Respondent’s subordinate employee, Assistant Manager X)

The respondent makes about ten phone calls a day and uses profanity or vulgar expressions after about six or seven of them. He seems to have severe mood swings, and often bangs his desk or keyboard and leaves the office. The company installed a canopy (a leaf-shaped screen) as a measure to protect the complainant, but it had little effect. Even in ordinary situations, he would unnecessarily get up from his seat in an aggressive manner, repeatedly find fault with the intern’s (witness’s) work, and say things such as, ‘I don’t know why Andrew does work like this, this bastard.’ After ending calls with customers, he also often says, ‘This bastard doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.’”

“When the above conduct seemed too severe, the Event Team Leader, who sits nearby, is at the same level as the respondent, and has worked for the company for a long time, told him several times, ‘Please do not go too far.’ However, there was no improvement afterward. After being told this, he would calm down for a few minutes, but he would soon start using vulgar language again, such as ‘No, this bastard...,’ while trying to justify why he felt wronged. When the respondent’s conduct becomes too severe, I sometimes move to another workspace to perform my work. I feel that the working environment has seriously deteriorated, and I do not want to be in the same space when the respondent is swearing. When I hear the respondent swearing, my heart pounds so much that I want to leave the space, but it is very difficult because I have to remain at my desk during work. When the intensity is strong, I tremble to the point where it is difficult to concentrate on work, and I often feel afraid.

(3) Witness 3 (Team Leader of another department at the same level)

 The respondent tends to mutter to himself because he has a quick temper. His voice is also loud, and the office itself has an echoing structure, so these remarks are easily heard by other employees in the office. Because I am older than the respondent, if I tell him to be careful, he is careful at that moment. However, when he becomes upset again, he seems to forget and repeats the conduct. In front of me, however, he has not gone as far as using the word ‘f*ck’; I have only heard expressions such as ‘oh, damn’ and ‘bullsh*t.’

3. Interview of the Respondent

I worked with the Korean Vice President for 15 years, and I am the type of person who works harder when praised. However, the way my current direct superior (the foreign Vice President, Andrew) gives work instructions and his leadership style are different from what I am used to and do not fit well with me, so conflicts seem to have arisen and I ended up expressing anger. I do not frequently mutter to myself or express anger just because I am angry. Since I do not communicate much with others, when I am stressed, I usually go outside to smoke. Until now, although I used profanity and vulgar expressions, I have never separately apologized to the members of the office, nor have I separately explained why I used profanity or vulgar language. I think people sharing the office may have been embarrassed because they did not know the reason. However, the conflicts with superiors or customers were not caused by the lower-ranking members in the office. Since then, I felt that I had been framed as a perpetrator of workplace harassment. After I was notified by email of the investigation on October 13, I went to a university hospital the very next day, had an electrocardiogram, and was diagnosed with temporary stress-related difficulty breathing. Through this opportunity, I reflected on my usual language and behavior in the office and concluded that I should improve.

4. Determination of Facts

All employees who worked near the respondent and who were lower than the respondent in rank or workplace relationship consistently stated that, after ending phone calls, the respondent repeatedly used profanity, vulgar expressions, and shouted loudly, displayed threatening verbal conduct, and worsened the working environment. Although there were differences in the respondent’s intent and in how each individual perceived the intensity of the conduct, all stated that the respondent’s conduct interfered with their work and that they wanted him to be separated from them. The complainant’s statement is accepted as true: after ending calls in the office, the respondent routinely used vulgar expressions such as “bullsh*t” and “bastard” several times per week, and depending on his mood, he sometimes used violent profanity such as “f*cking bastard” and “f*ck.” It was also confirmed that such conduct occurred more frequently and more intensely when junior employees of lower rank, such as an assistant manager and interns, were present.

III. Determination of Whether Workplace Harassment Was Established

1. Requirements for Workplace Harassment

 For workplace harassment to be established according to Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act, the following three requirements must be satisfied. If any one of the requirements is not satisfied, workplace harassment is not established. To conduct an objective and fair investigation, the determination of whether workplace harassment was established in this case is made based on legal principles from court decisions involving reports of workplace harassment with facts similar to this case.

(1) Conduct using superiority in workplace position or relationship

  Workplace position includes persons who can be recognized as having a superior position within the workplace, regardless of a formal “command or order relationship.” In general, if a person holds a superior rank and is in a position to give work-related instructions or orders, that person has “business-related superiority.”[1]

(2) Conduct exceeding the appropriate scope of work

 Whether the conduct at issue exceeds the appropriate scope of work should be determined based on the business rationality of the conduct itself and workplace practice. The requirement is met if (1) the conduct is not recognized as necessary for work in light of social norms, or (2) even if work-related necessity is recognized, the manner of the conduct is considered inappropriate in light of social norms.

(3) Conduct that causes physical or mental suffering or worsens the working environment

 Conduct that worsens a person’s working environment means conduct that causes interference with the person’s ability to perform to a degree that cannot be overlooked. Even if the actor had no such intent, the requirement is recognized if the conduct caused mental or physical suffering or worsened the working environment. In this case in particular, because the complainant is a junior employee with a significantly shorter period of service than the respondent, it must also be additionally reviewed whether the above requirements could be satisfied from the perspective of a reasonable and average person in the same position as the complainant (a junior employee).

2. Determination of Whether the Respondent’s Conduct Constituted Workplace Harassment

(1) Use of superiority in position or relationship (√) 

 The respondent is a managerial employee (team leader) who has worked for the company for approximately 17 years, since 2008. Compared with the complainant, a junior employee who was hired in 2023 and holds the rank of assistant manager, the respondent clearly has superiority in both workplace position and rank within the company. Furthermore, the respondent has often mentioned his long tenure, and in light of his greater work experience than the complainant, his superiority is recognized not only in position and rank but also in relationship. Therefore, the respondent is recognized as having superiority over the complainant in both position and relationship.

(2) Exceeds the appropriate scope of work (√) 

 Court precedents take the position that, even where profanity and vulgar language are not specifically directed at another party, workplace harassment may be established if profanity toward a third party is repeated and continued in a public place, causing mental suffering to multiple people exposed to the conduct and worsening the working environment. In particular, a superior’s one-sided profanity repeated within the company premises, in an open and public place, may give subordinates a sense of pressure or intimidation even if the profanity is directed at a third party. Considering that such conduct is sufficiently likely to worsen other employees’ working environment, if subordinates feel offended by the conduct and feel that it interfered with their work, the conduct is deemed to exceed the appropriate scope of work and constitute workplace harassment.[2]

During working hours, while emotionally agitated due to conflicts with his superior (company management) or customers, the respondent expressed anger in the office, mainly where lower-ranking employees were present, and routinely used vulgar expressions to himself such as “bullsh*t” and “bastard.” In some cases, when his emotions became further heightened, he repeatedly shouted severe profanity such as “f*ck” and “that f*cking bastard; I can’t kill him or beat him up,” causing listeners to feel offended and, in particular, repeatedly engaging in violent verbal conduct that psychologically intimidated lower-ranking employees. The respondent’s routine and repeated use of profanity and vulgar expressions cannot be justified in the office, which is a public workspace. Therefore, it had no work-related necessity, and even if any such necessity existed, the conduct is deemed to have far exceeded the appropriate scope of work.

(3) Physical or mental suffering or deterioration of the working environment (√)

 It is recognized that the complainant suffered mental distress, as the complainant had a canopy (a leaf-shaped screen) installed on the desk because of the respondent’s conduct and, when the respondent’s violent verbal conduct still did not improve, ultimately filed this report. In addition, other witnesses had considered filing a workplace harassment report immediately before the complainant’s report or had repeatedly requested management to separate them from the respondent, citing “work inefficiency caused by the respondent’s violent verbal conduct.” This is sufficient to conclude that the overall office working environment deteriorated.

3. Conclusion

In conclusion, the conduct at issue was “the act of publicly displaying violent verbal conduct in the office by continuously and repeatedly using profanity, vulgar expressions, and shouting loudly after phone calls in front of employees who were lower than the respondent in rank and workplace relationship.” Therefore, (1) the respondent used superiority in workplace position or relationship; (2) the conduct exceeded the appropriate scope of work; and (3) the conduct caused mental suffering or worsened the working environment. As all three requirements are satisfied, the respondent’s personal profanity and related conduct constitute workplace harassment.

IV. Recommended Company Actions

1. For the Complainant

Because the respondent’s conduct reported by the complainant constitutes workplace harassment, the company should take appropriate action under Article 76-3(4) of the Labor Standards Act at the complainant’s request, such as changing the place of work, transferring duties, or ordering paid leave. Therefore, after notifying the parties of the findings of the workplace harassment investigation, the company should again listen to the complainant’s opinion on follow-up measures and reflect the complainant’s wishes as much as possible. During the face-to-face interview, the only follow-up measure requested by the complainant was that the respondent, who is currently separated, not move from the separate space and continue to work there. Since many witnesses do not want the respondent to return to the existing office, it would be appropriate to keep the respondent (one person) separated in consideration of the complainant and other employees and to improve work efficiency.

In addition, Article 76-3(5) provides that the complainant’s opinion must be heard before disciplinary action is taken against the harasser. Therefore, before disciplining the harasser for workplace harassment, the company should interview the complainant and hear the complainant’s views, either orally or in writing, regarding the disciplinary measure against him. Furthermore, even after the workplace harassment investigation has been completed, the complainant should be informed that the duty of confidentiality still applies because disciplinary action and other follow-up measures against the harasser remain pending.

2. For the Respondent

The external investigation found that the respondent’s conduct constituted workplace harassment, which is in accordance with the company’s disciplinary procedure guidelines. Therefore, pursuant to Article 76-3(5) of the Labor Standards Act and the relevant guideline provisions, the company should take action against the respondent, including disciplinary action. Your company’s disciplinary guidelines provide that, when grounds for disciplinary action are confirmed as a result of an investigation, the company may resolve the matter informally through support or training, or, if the matter is subject to more severe disciplinary action, convene and deliberate through a disciplinary committee with the accused employee in attendance. The company may choose either option and make a disciplinary decision accordingly.

The seriousness of the respondent’s conduct is recognized in light of the following circumstances: the consistency of the complainant’s and multiple witnesses’ statements in this external investigation showed the continuity and repetition of the respondent’s language and behavior; employees lower than the respondent in rank and workplace relationship suffered mental distress and their working environment deteriorated; and despite being a senior employee in a managerial position who should have set an example, the respondent instead took the lead in disturbing workplace order, psychologically intimidated lower-ranking employees in the process, and worsened the working environment for multiple employees. On the other hand, considering as mitigating factors that the respondent worked for the company for a long period and contributed to its development, and that he has no prior disciplinary record, it is recommended that the company impose a light disciplinary measure, ranging from a reprimand at least to a reduction of salary.

3. Recommended Company Measures

From the date on which the formal workplace harassment report was received until resolution of the investigation, the company has fulfilled its obligation to conduct an objective external workplace harassment investigation through an outside expert in accordance with the Labor Standards Act and the company’s own rules of employment and disciplinary procedure guidelines. The complainant also stated during the face-to-face investigation that the complainant was satisfied with the company’s measures to date and did not request any additional measures during the investigation other than continued separation from the respondent. Even after the workplace harassment investigation is completed, the company should make efforts to ensure that all appropriate follow-up measures are implemented fully in accordance with the Labor Standards Act and the company’s disciplinary procedure guidelines.

Meanwhile, during the face-to-face interviews, some witness statements suggested the possibility of additional misconduct by the harasser outside of workplace harassment, including (1) insubordination toward a superior, (2) improper conduct in responding to customers that caused damage to the company, and (3) workplace sexual harassment. If the company initiates a separate disciplinary investigation regarding these issues, it should refer to the written fact-confirmation statements obtained during this workplace harassment investigation and clearly determine the truth of the allegations. Finally, at the company level, training should be provided to all employees on the norms and basic etiquette to be observed in the workplace so that similar conduct will not recur in the future.