From the Silly News Desk
Some news from South Korea. I agree with the court. Unless getting drunk was required as a job qualification by the employer, Mr. Choi was out of line.
Hat tip- Marmot's Hole
Linked to- Adam, Jo, Pirate's Cove,
In a decisive blow to office bullies who force colleagues to drink with them whether they want to or not, a court has ordered one such man to pay W30 million in damages to a junior co-worker (US$1=W928). The court heard that the man forced a junior female colleague to drink at dinner parties, and refused to let her go home. In March 2004, the 30-year-old woman went for a job interview with an online game manufacturer. After the official interview, she went to a drinking party, billed as a "drinking interview", along with a personnel manager identified as Choi (39). After drinking a couple of glasses of beer, the woman declined an offer of soju or Korean distilled liquor, pleading a bad stomach. But Choi insisted she would pass the booze test only after drinking until 3 o'clock in the morning.
At the instructions of Choi, all company staff had to attend at least two dinner parties a week. On one occasion, the woman attempted to sneak away. Choi called after her to come back, but she refused. At the next such “party”, she was severely scolded by Choi. On another occasion she attempted to mix her whiskey with water, saying she really could not drink much. But Choi told her to drink “or you’ll be in trouble with me,” the court heard. After some time, the woman started to suffer gastritis and migraine, and experienced frequent nausea after meals. She sought treatment and ended a four-year relationship with her boyfriend. Eventually, she filed suit against Choi.
The Seoul High Court on Sunday ordered Choi to pay the woman W30 million, increasing damages of W7 million awarded by a lower court. The bench said Choi “arranged more than two dinner parties a week and forced the plaintiff to drink without letting her go home until early in the morning.” It ruled this was an illegal act that infringed on the plaintiff’s right to self-determination and to freely enjoy her time after working hours, and caused her psychological pain.