SOUTH KOREA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Woojong William Kim, Sang Hoon Lee and Seyoung Kang, Lee & Ko
• employees review NDAs, settlement agreements and company policies using AI to identify risks or disadvantageous language/wording; and • when submitting written statements, employees use AI to redraft responses, framing narratives to: • avoid admissions; Once again, this trend applies to both complainants and alleged harassers, leading to more strategic, pol - ished submissions, but presents an unprecedented challenge to employers. From an employment law perspective, AI does not alter statutory obligations and investigations must remain objective. However, it raises challenges in credibility assessments and per - suasion; employers must more carefully determine procedures and apply a greater filter to detect biases and mischaracterisations. Furthermore, employers may encounter resistance to conclusions that contra - dict AI-generated advice, leading to increased esca - lation to MOEL or the courts – a reality that may be fueling employees’ willingness to escalate cases to the Labour Office and beyond. To counter this, employers should: • ensure investigations are transparent and evi - dence-based; • document all steps meticulously to withstand scrutiny; • consider involving neutral third-party investigators for complex cases; • train investigators on AI’s limitations, emphasising legal standards over generic advice; and • communicate more regularly with the employees to establish credibility of the procedure and ultimately, the outcome. Trend 3: Threats of Personal Defamation Lawsuits and Employer Protection Duties The LSA and the Equal Employment Act prohibit employer retaliation but do not directly address interpersonal conduct between employees. A grow - ing trend involves alleged harassers or others who threaten or file personal defamation lawsuits against complainants or witnesses as part of a good-faith • emphasise certain facts; or • preempt misinterpretations.
exercise of one’s legal right or as part of an intimida - tion or retaliatory strategy. Such actions may be legitimate exercises of legal rights (eg, defending reputation) or perceived as intimidation. The Criminal Act and Civil Act, in princi - ple, allow defamation claims, even if statements were made in good faith during investigations. Employers, therefore, face growing dilemmas: they cannot prevent individuals from pursuing their legal rights, yet victims may claim that the employer failed to protect them or engaged in discriminatory treat - ment by failing to intervene in a breach of statutory obligations. MOEL guidance and court precedents emphasise employer duties to protect victims, including shielding them from further harm. However, the scope of third-party actions is unclear. Victims increasingly argue that threats constitute retaliation or that employer inaction exacerbates harm. AI exacerbates this situation. Specifically, employees seek AI advice on defamation risks, once again often receiving broad conclusions that encourage escala - tion. Employers should: • include broad policies prohibiting intimidation or retaliation; • document any threats and consider internal meas - ures (eg, warnings); • advise parties on legal rights without interfering; and • monitor for patterns that could imply employer complicity that could be interpreted as a violation of the employer’s statutory obligations. Implications for Employers These trends signal a more litigious, technology- empowered workforce. Investigations must be: • objective and comprehensive – withstanding exter - nal review by MOEL or courts; • well-documented – justifying findings amid AI-influ - enced expectations; • fair to all parties – ensuring due process for alleged harassers; and
355 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook