Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Human Rights Commission of Korea - Complaint Summaries

Investigation and Remedies for Discrimination based on Age [2003] KRNHRC 45 (26 August 2003)

`Age discrimination' refers to "any act of depriving persons of opportunities
or unfavorable treatment on the grounds of age." That is, acts of favorable
treatment, excluding, discriminating against, or unfavorably treating a particular
person without reasonable grounds in employment, supply or use of goods,
services, transportation, and residential facilities, etc., and use of educational
facilities or vocational training institutions. The Commission investigated the
case, which eventually closed through amicable settlement, for such
discriminatory acts as follows:

The complainant filed a petition against the principal of High School,
arguing that when the complainant demanded investigation of the incident of
leakage of the mid term math test in advance and the leakage of the answer
sheet for a trial examination that occurred while the complainant was serving
as a substitute teacher for the 2002 academic year. The respondent fired the
complainant to cover up the incident and excluded the complainant in the
reappointment of substitute teachers for the 2003 academic year by setting the
age limit of the applicants to under 35 years of age.

During the investigation of the case, the Commission found that the act of
the respondent of setting an age limit for appointments was in violation of
rights of equality, and on August 26, 2003, closed the case by helping the
parties concerned reach an amicable settlement by reappointing the complainant
as a substitute teacher.

Another complainant, who had worked as vice branch manager of
Branch of Security Fund (Grade 2), was forced into honorary retirement
due to `age,' but the complainant rejected the request. Age limits varied
depending classification and rank. Then, the respondent classified the
complainant under `those subject to quasi age limit retirement' and assigned the
complainant to a post of research (on the wait list) of regional
headquarters, a distant location where the complainant has no connections,
ostensibly for staffing purposes, with the wages of the complainant reduced by
54%. The complainant filed a complaint arguing that assignment to the wait list
due for refusal against honorary retirement on the grounds of age is unjust and
demanded to be reinstated to the original post. During the course of
investigation, the Commission closed the case after amicable settlement between
the parties concerned. It was agreed that, "the complainant will be reinstated
as a research officer, and the complainant will assume an extraordinary post
when he reaches the age of 55. The average wages to be applied to the
calculation for the interim settlement of retirement pay for the complainant will
be the average wage level of a research officer, the post to which the
complainant was reinstated,"