The Supreme Court said Friday it overturned a lower court decision to reinstate a professor who was fired for sexually harassing students, saying it lacked sensitivity to gender equality.

The top court sent the case back to the Seoul High Court for retrial, and stressed that judges should apply gender sensitivity in handling cases of sexual wrongdoing, presenting a yardstick for future trials as the #MeToo movement sweeps the country.

Gender sensitivity refers to the aim of understanding societal and cultural factors involved in gender-based exclusion and discrimination.

The professor was dismissed from a provincial university in April 2015 on 14 counts of sexual harassment which included hugging a female student from behind and kissing a female student on her cheek while she was asleep during a class trip.

The professor took his case to the Appeal Commission for Teachers, calling for the cancellation of his dismissal. When his appeal was rejected, he filed a suit against the commission. 

In the first trial, the court acknowledged all of the 14 harassment allegations as facts and ruled that his dismissal was legitimate as he could harass more students if he continued to work.

The appellate court, however, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying it was hard to validate some of the allegations since a purported victim did not mention the hugging in her anonymous evaluation of the lecture, and a student who was allegedly kissed did not bring it up for years until other victims asked her to.

In reversing the Seoul High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court warned that judges can be misled by stereotypes, and laid out guidelines for trials on sexual issues.

“It is the first court ruling that presented the legal principles for trial and judgment of evidence in sexual harassment lawsuits,” an official at the Supreme Court said.

“It is expected to serve as a key standard for judgment in future trials of sexual harassment cases.”

The Supreme Court said judges must bear in mind the possibility of secondary victimization of those who spoke out about sexual violence, and judge the victims’ statements with full consideration of the special circumstances they are in.

Judges must be mindful that victims often hesitate to reveal their experiences for fear of secondary victimization as their intentions can easily be misunderstood in a male-centric culture, the top court said.

The Supreme Court also advised judges to note that, fearing secondary victimization, victims often do not sever relations with the perpetrators, and speak out only after their crimes have been made public.

The top court said dismissing victims’ statements without fully taking into their particular circumstances runs against the notions of justice and equity.

By Kim So-hyun (sophie@heraldcorp.com)