In March 2020, a South Korean pharmaceutical company came under fire after an online allegation that the company had sexually discriminated against candidates during its recruitment process gathered massive attention on YouTube. The company has since issued an apology in response to the controversy, but workplace gender equality in Korea remains a highly debated topic. With implications such as mandatory military service for men, much of the related discourse has veered off topic into fights that place men and women in opposition. In addition to finding a solution for the lack of legal regulation on discriminatory employment, an effort to seal the damaged emotional gap between genders is needed.

The controversy began with a comment found under a video of the popular YouTube series Nego-wang, or “King of Negotiating.” The comment was posted under a particular video in which the host Jang Yeong-ran negotiated with Dong-A Pharmaceutical’s (Dong-A) chairman Choi Ho-jin for a discount on their menstrual products. The commenter claimed that she experienced sexual discrimination during a job interview with Dong-A on November 16, 2020, and was infuriated by how the company “did not want to hire women but want to sell feminine products.” She explained that the interviewer specifically asked her opinion on women being paid less than men because they did not serve in the army, while other male interviewers were asked to share their military experiences.

The comment soon hit many media headlines as the YouTube video reached over one million views, stirring up negative opinions against Dong-A. In response, Choi made an apologetic comment under the same video, clarifying that “one of the interviewers caused discomfort to the candidate by asking a question that was not in the interview manual” and promised to improve their interviewer training. However, his response failed to calm the enraged public, as many understood the comment as the company attempting to cut ties with the one interviewer in question instead of acknowledging crucial flaws in their recruitment system.

Diverging Responses to Allegations of Sexism

The controversy motivated other women to share their experiences of employment-related sexual discrimination. A former employee of Dong-A revealed on Jobplanet, an anonymous job review website, that the office atmosphere was patriarchal and highly unwelcoming to women. Another Twitter user revealed that she heard offensive remarks such as “the problem with women is that they get married, have kids, then soon quit work” and “we do not hire women because of the #MeToo movement” during an interview with a display company. The hostile sentiment against Dong-A culminated in a boycott against the company, with people sharing lists of similar products from other companies consumers could purchase instead of Dong-A’s.

Meanwhile, others questioned the authenticity of the commenter’s interview experience, believing it could be subjective and even biased. For instance, the original commenter claimed that the interviewer intentionally ostracized her to eventually reject her, even though she had a “perfect resume.” The direct correlation she made between her gender, her job rejection, and the interview question seemed like a stretch to some people. In addition, some argued that the question asked was an appropriate substitution for a question asking to share military service experiences. They argued that asking both women and men the exact same questions on army experiences would be, in fact, more unfair than what apparently happened.

Whether the interview question was sexist seems to be ambiguous. Professor Oh Jung Jin (Law School, Pusan National University) pointed out that the question itself may have been used to assess the applicant’s critical thinking and reasoning abilities as it required the applicant to convey her opinion on a potentially controversial topic. However, considering how the question was not meant to facilitate a genuine debate but rather placed the interviewee in an even more dire situation as a candidate for a highly competitive occupation, the question could qualify as being sexually discriminative.

Putting Legal Regulations into Effect

Despite many years of advocating for equality in the employment process, controversies such as the Dong-A case still occur due to the lack of legal regulations. The significance of having legal regulations on discrimination in the recruitment process extends beyond this single controversy. In order to prevent bias based on factors such as age, religion, race, and parental status, proper laws that forbid workplace discrimination are required. However, the current law fails to fulfill this task. For instance, according to Article 4-3 of the Fair Hiring Procedure Act, employers cannot demand information regarding aspects such as physical appearance and marital status as they are not necessary for evaluation on job performance. However, this decree does not apply to what takes place during interviews, which perhaps explains why the interviewee of the current controversy did not respond legally.

Although the effects of legal regulations are insufficient, Professor Oh insisted that applicants should actively utilize limited resources in the face of sexual discrimination during interviews. She explains that the interview process in question could be argued as problematic based on Article 7, Clause 1 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, which protects job applicants in a more general sense in that “business owners should not discriminate against men and women when recruiting or hiring workers.” The key is to prepare solid evidence such as recordings and witnesses. In short, it is difficult to prove that there is a problem, but it is not entirely impossible.

In addition, Professor Oh elaborated that “using legal channels such as lawsuits is meaningful in itself in that it will cultivate discussions on employment discrimination in the process, even if the results do not come out as desired.” Instead of working to devise new laws that prohibit discriminatory questions during interviews, — which is difficult to define in the first place — she suggests people to look at the bigger picture while they fight for their right to equal opportunity. She believes that this will help shape a better society where interviewees are confident that rebutting against interview questions would not place them in a disadvantageous position for the job.

The topic of gender bias in Korea’s employment process has once again been spotlighted, prompted by an allegation of Dong-A’s sexual discrimination during a job interview. While the public response to this specific event was divided, it is an undeniable fact that discrimination in the employment process remains unregulated by law. It is time for Korea to push for functional changes that would create a more equal and coherent society.