A dismissal can be invalidated if a private university professor was denied the presence of a lawyer at a disciplinary hearing, the Supreme Court has ruled, in a case involving a professor removed over allegations including indecent assault of a student.
The Supreme Court's Third Division, with Justice Lee Heung-goo as the presiding judge, overturned a lower court ruling that had gone against a former Chung-Ang University associate professor identified as A and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court, legal sources said on the 13th. A had sued the Teachers' Appeal Commission seeking to cancel its decision on his appeal.
A was accused in 2021 of sexual harassment and indecent assault of a graduate student under his supervision, including telling her to touch his forearm, calling her "pretty one" on a mobile messenger app and asking for full-body photos, and holding her hand in a car. In February 2022, Chung-Ang University's teacher disciplinary committee voted to dismiss him, saying his conduct was "sufficient to cause sexual humiliation or revulsion."
A appeared at the committee's deliberation with a lawyer and asked that the lawyer be allowed to sit in and make statements, but the committee refused. The lawyer remained in a nearby waiting room while the hearing proceeded. A later contested the dismissal, taking his case to the teachers' appeal process and then to court.
The first and second trials sided with the university. The courts found that because the relationship between a school foundation and a private university teacher is a contractual one under private law, it is difficult to view the right to retain counsel under the Administrative Procedure Act as expressly guaranteed. They also held that A's right to defend himself was not substantially infringed, since the lawyer had been able to provide any necessary assistance from the waiting room.
The Supreme Court took a different view. It found that disciplinary deliberation and resolution carried out while restricting, without special circumstances, the attendance and statements of a lawyer retained by the teacher can be seen as failing to sufficiently guarantee the party's right to a defense.
"In light of the purpose of the Teacher Status Act, the procedural rights recognized for private school teachers also need to be protected at a level corresponding to that recognized for public school teachers," the court said. "The attendance of a lawyer retained by a private school teacher at a disciplinary committee and the presentation of necessary opinions is likewise an essential element of exercising the right to a defense."
On remand, the court will reconsider whether the disciplinary committee's refusal to allow the lawyer's attendance and statements constitutes a procedural defect that infringed A's right to a defense.
