South Korea's National Human Rights Commission has determined that comments made by the principal of a public high school in Seoul constituted discriminatory behavior related to pregnancy and miscarriage. The principal allegedly pressured a teacher who had received a miscarriage diagnosis early in her pregnancy to attend school events while questioning her surgery schedule. The commission has recommended that the principal undergo special human rights training, while the education office's abuse of power review committee previously ruled that the incident did not constitute abuse of power.
According to a report by Education Hope on October 26, the commission's discrimination correction committee concluded that the case brought by teacher A against the principal was fundamentally linked to pregnancy and childbirth. The principal prioritized work continuity over the teacher's need for recovery, treating her physical recovery as a work-related burden, which the commission deemed discriminatory. The commission noted that the principal has a significant responsibility to manage and supervise staff and protect maternity, warning that such an attitude could impose a similar burden on other female staff members. Teacher A received the decision document on October 6.
On April 1, teacher A was diagnosed with an early miscarriage and, following medical advice, planned to undergo a dilation and curettage procedure the next day, requesting to leave early and take sick leave. Teacher A claims that the principal summoned her to the office before a school event and asked if she had scheduled her surgery, suggesting she should come to work to assess her condition before undergoing the procedure. At that time, the school had scheduled curriculum-related events and a leadership camp, and teacher A returned to work two days after her surgery, despite not having fully recovered, to participate in a weekend event.
The principal denies making such comments, stating that she advised teacher A to take sick leave and that attendance at the school event was voluntary. During the commission's investigation, the principal claimed that the teacher expressed her willingness to attend and that she was not pressured to come to work if she was unwell, but the commission did not accept this explanation.
On April 23, teacher A reported the alleged abuse of power to the Ministry of Education, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education's Audit Office, and the National Petition Office. The case was transferred to the Gangdong Songpa Education Support Office for review by the abuse of power committee, which concluded on June 16 that the principal's actions did not constitute abuse of power. The education office acknowledged that some statements encouraging participation in events were confirmed but determined there was insufficient objective evidence to suggest a coercive atmosphere, asserting that the review process was conducted legally.
The Human Rights Commission has indicated that the determination of discrimination should not solely rely on explicit orders for disadvantage or coercion but should comprehensively assess the work-related burdens and their justification arising from a superior's comments. Teacher A expressed her disbelief that the education office did not classify the incident as abuse of power and called for the principal to sincerely implement the human rights training recommendation and for the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education to develop measures. However, the commission's recommendations do not carry legal enforcement.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.