Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action for School's Unlawful Whistleblower Inquiry

The Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of school staff who attempted to unlawfully confirm whether a former principal and teacher, who...

The Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of school staff who attempted to unlawfully confirm whether a former principal and teacher, who were public interest whistleblowers, were under investigation or involved in misconduct constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

On the 15th, according to the legal community, the Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Shin Suk-hee) recently overturned a lower court ruling that had favored the plaintiffs—a school foundation operating Seorabeol Middle and High School, its chairman, and others—in their lawsuit to cancel an institutional warning disposition issued by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. The case was remanded to the Seoul High Court.

In 2020, the vice principal of Seorabeol High School, the acting administrative director, and a clerk sent official requests titled “Request for Cooperation in Investigating Alleged Wrongdoing” to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office, Seoul Nowon Police Station, and the Board of Audit and Inspection, inquiring whether investigations or probes were being conducted into the former principal and Teacher A, a public interest whistleblower. They received responses stating “no such cases existed.” Later, upon discovering this, Teacher A filed a complaint with the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, alleging that the vice principal and others had requested and obtained investigation results from law enforcement agencies regarding the whistleblowers and that the school foundation had attempted to cover up the issue after the complaint was raised.

The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education conducted an audit from November 2021 to February of the following year. It concluded that the vice principal’s actions violated the Personal Information Protection Act and the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act, and issued a warning disposition to the school foundation and its chairman. The Office reasoned that failing to demand disciplinary action against the vice principal and others constituted a breach of the duty of care of a good manager. The school foundation and others then filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the warning.

The first and second trials ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Private School Act, which stipulates grounds for disciplinary action, applies to violations of “the Private School Act and other education-related laws.” Since the Personal Information Protection Act does not pertain to education or teachers, the lower courts deemed it not a disciplinary ground under the Private School Act. They further ruled that the absence of disciplinary demands did not constitute a breach of the duty of care, and thus no grounds for a warning existed.

However, the Supreme Court found legal errors in the lower courts’ reasoning. It stated, “The vice principal is a private school teacher, and if the act of requesting and receiving investigation results from law enforcement agencies with administrative staff violated the Personal Information Protection Act, it would constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, which applies to private school teachers’ service obligations, and thus a disciplinary ground.” Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, which applies to private school teachers, imposes a duty to comply with laws and perform duties faithfully.

The Supreme Court added, “The school foundation’s failure to demand disciplinary action against the vice principal and others could be seen as violating the foundation’s obligation to request disciplinary deliberations and the chairman’s duty of care.” It noted, “The plaintiffs appear to have been aware that inquiring about alleged wrongdoing with law enforcement agencies without legitimate necessity could infringe on human rights.”