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

Disability Discrimination in Application for Special Screening of Persons with Disabilities [2004] KRNHRC 32 (1 February 2004)

A complainant filed a petition against OO University and University, arguing that
these universities permitted only those persons with visual handicaps, hearing impairments,
and physically handicaps only to apply for special screening for special education, which
constitutes discrimination against persons with disabilities other than the above said.
The complainant, whose bipolar disorder was classified as a Grade 2 mental disability,
was going to apply for special screening for special education at OO University and
University in 2003. However, the universities refused to receive the application because the
complainant did not come under the scope of the disabilities as defined by them.

The investigation revealed that most universities that select students through special
screening for special education allow those with visual handicaps, hearing impairments, and
physically handicapped to apply for the screening. Only a few universities receive
applications from all those registered as persons with disabilities under the Welfare of
Disabled Persons Act without limitation on the specific scope of disabilities and then select
according to their own admission standards including the degree of disability.
Although universities are not required by law to conduct special screening for a greater
number of students above the legally required quotas, and though authority to select
finalists through special screening for students for special education lies with the university
concerned, it is the view of the Commission that universities need to
(1) make college education available to those who are educationally and socially neglected, upholding the
principle of equality and universality,
(2) expand facilities for special education as higher educational institutions,
(3) expand opportunities for the disabled to receive higher education by offering preferential
treatment aggressively, and
(4) take leadership in improving public awareness about the disabled.

The Commission decided that to limit the qualifications of application for special
screening for special education to those persons with visual handicaps, hearing impairments,
and physical handicaps only serves to deprive those with other disabilities including mental
disorders, emotional disorders (including autism), language disorders, and learning disorders
(prescribed under Article 10 of Special Education Promotion Act) of opportunities to apply
for special screening. This therefore constitutes discrimination on the ground of type of
disability in the use of educational facilities.

The Commission recommended that OO University and University also give
persons with disabilities other than visual handicaps, hearing impairments, and physical
handicaps opportunities to apply for special screening for special education, under the
Special Education Promotion Act. The Commission also presented a recommendation to the
Minister of Education and Human Resources Development to require universities to rectify
the practice of limiting application qualifications to specific types of disabilities during
screening for special education.

The complainant filed a case against the president of OO University in February 2004
arguing that he "has been passed over for promotion to Grade 6 for the last 20 years on
the grounds that he is disabled since he was appointed a public officer at Grade 9 in 1977".
The complainant, who is disabled with Grade 3 cerebral palsy, acquired a Grade 2
regular librarian license. He was appointed to the library of OO University as a Grade 9
public officer in 1977. He worked in the reading room and collection room of the library
in charge of classification, assortment, and rearrangement of various types of books
including Japanese and Chinese books. He was promoted to Grade 7 in 1984. Since then,
he has engaged in assortment of Japanese and Chinese books as a Grade 7 public officer.
After investigation, the Commission found that as of March 2004, OO University library
had 34 librarians, and 11 of them were Grade 6. It took each six years, eight months to
thirteen years to be promoted to Grade 6 from Grade 7. The average period is about nine
and one-half years. There are currently 14 Grade 7 librarians. Except for the complainant,
the other 13 librarians were promoted to Grade 7 four to ten years ago. The complainant
is exceptional in that he is the only one who has not been promoted for 20 years.

The complainant has worked for a very long period of time. He has sufficient language
skills in Japanese and Chinese needed for assortment of Japanese and Chinese books. The
majority of the complainant's colleagues at the office evaluate his work capabilities very
favorably. The person in charge of determining the efficiency rating of the complainant
from 1999 to 2003 could not point out any particular shortcoming in the job performance
or capability of the complainant and conceded that the case constituted disability
discrimination, stating that the complainant had always been given the lowest grade.
In 1999, the chairman of the Ordinary Promotion Screening Committee asked the director
of the library why the complainant had been given such an unusually low grade for his
work experience, and the director gave an evasive answer to the effect that the complainant
could not perform the duties of Grade 6 because he was disabled with a `learning disorder'.
In 2000, the complainant was the best candidate for promotion, but the Ordinary Promotion
Screening Committee submitted the opinion that the circumstances of the library should be
considered, resulting in exclusion of the complainant from promotion. The Commission
decided that such acts by committee constituted a direct and huge disadvantage to the
complainant in promotion on the grounds of a disability that had none impact on job
capability or performance.

The Commission recommended to the President of OO University that successive acts of
discrimination against the complainant in ratings and promotion screening procedures be
redressed and that effective rules on prohibition of discrimination against the disabled be
prepared, including new guidelines for performance ratings in order to prevent reoccurrence
of such discriminatory acts.