Case of Securing a Dismissal of Appeal After Causation Between Adverse HR Action and an Employee Death Was Denied

The client was a company that operates its business by employing a large number of workers. After implementing a personnel measure against an employee in accordance with its internal regulations, the employee died, and the company subsequently faced a claim for damages from the bereaved family. The plaintiffs claimed that the personnel measure at issue effectively amounted to an unjust disciplinary action, and that it imposed excessive mental and physical burden on the employee, leading to his death, and accordingly sought a large amount of damages. At the first instance, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed, but they appealed, and in the appellate proceedings the legality of the personnel measure and the causal relationship with the death once again became the key issues in dispute.

The core issues in this case were, first, whether the personnel measure in question was a lawful measure based on the rules of employment and internal regulations, or whether it constituted an unlawful disciplinary action; and second, even if there were problems with the personnel measure, whether it had a proximate causal relationship with the employee's death.

Insight Law Firm, representing the client, emphasized that the personnel measure at issue was a measure taken in accordance with internal regulations on the premise of the employee's repeated violations of the regulations.

In addition, we demonstrated in concrete terms that the measure was carried out based on operational necessity within the scope of the company's personnel authority, and that it is difficult to find that the content or intensity of the work performed by the employee had been essentially or substantially changed compared to before.

Furthermore, by comprehensively reviewing the employee's working pattern, working hours, rest periods, and health condition, we systematically argued that there were no special circumstances from which a sudden increase in work-related burden or the death could have been foreseen.

As a result, the appellate court maintained the first-instance decision as it was, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, and also ruled that the plaintiffs should bear the costs of the appeal. The court clearly held that it is difficult to find the personnel measure at issue unlawful, and that even assuming it were unlawful, it would be difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the measure and the employee's death. This case is highly significant as a precedent clarifying that, in disputes where the boundary between the exercise of a company's personnel authority and the protection of workers is at issue, the mere fact that there was a personnel disadvantage does not in itself establish the employer's liability for damages. In particular, it provides an important standard for similar disputes in the future in that the court strictly assessed the causal relationship between the employee's death and the work or personnel measure.

"Your Legal Team" examines in advance the legal risks that may arise in personnel and labor disputes, and even when a dispute arises, provides strategic responses that precisely analyze the facts and legal principles to minimize the company's liability.