'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
On March 25, 2025, Monthly Chosun reported that the former ADOR CEO, Min Hee-jin’s legal team has pushed back against the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s recent decision regarding workplace bullying allegations. The ministry issued a prior notice of a fine. It stated that some of Min Hee-jin’s actions constituted workplace harassment.
However, her legal representatives argue that there were errors in the ruling and have confirmed their intention to formally appeal. They claim that key facts were misunderstood and that legal principles regarding workplace bullying were misapplied.
As per Monthly Chosun, they said,
"Upon reviewing the response regarding the handling of the case, it was confirmed that the facts surrounding the remarks that were determined to be workplace bullying were incorrectly acknowledged, and that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Labor Standards Act regarding workplace bullying and the duty of objective investigation."
Trending
They continued,
"Accordingly, we plan to proceed with formal appeal procedures, such as promptly submitting opinions to the administrative agency, to uncover the exact truth of the case and clear the unjust accusations."
The case began when a former ADOR employee (referred to as B) accused Min Hee-jin of workplace harassment and bias in handling a se*ual harassment case involving another executive. B initially brought these allegations forward in August last year. This led to an investigation by the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office.
Min Hee-jin’s legal team criticized how certain statements were classified as workplace bullying following the ruling. They stated that they were inaccurately recognized. They also expressed concern over media reports portraying the ruling as final. They further clarified that it remains a preliminary decision and that they will take appropriate legal action to contest it.
More details of the Min Hee-jin's case and further developments
The Ministry of Employment and Labor investigated B’s complaint and partially upheld the claims. They determined that Min Hee-jin’s continuous remarks toward B exceeded reasonable workplace conduct. As a result, the ministry issued a prior notice of a fine against her to conclude the administrative case.
The Ministry stated,
"The continuous comments made by former CEO Min to Mr. B exceeded the appropriate scope of work and may have caused physical and mental suffering to the complainant or worsened the work environment, and therefore constituted workplace bullying. We have imposed a fine on the perpetrator ( former CEO Min ) in advance and concluded the administrative case."
Meanwhile, the ministry also reviewed allegations of workplace bullying and se*ual harassment against a former ADOR executive, referred to as Vice President A. The ministry ruled that ADOR failed to conduct a proper investigation into the allegations. It also ultimately found no legal violations in the se*ual harassment claims and issued corrective guidance instead of penalties.
B called the ruling significant, as it was the first official acknowledgment of misconduct. They also believed it could impact ongoing civil and criminal cases. However, Min’s legal team argued that no fine had been imposed yet and planned to challenge the decision.
They also urged media outlets to refrain from spreading misleading information about the ruling. Min Hee-jin's legal team also stated,
"This case does not mean that a surcharge was imposed, but rather that prior notice was given before the surcharge was imposed, and any objections were reviewed. If there are no objections, the surcharge is ultimately imposed. The surcharge has not been imposed yet; it is merely a prior notice."
Min Hee-jin initially served as ADOR’s CEO from its establishment in 2020 until she resigned from the position in August last year. She later stepped down as an executive director in November which severed ties with the company. The case has sparked debate as some question whether B’s claims were influenced by external factors, particularly with HYBE.
However, B denied any connection between the timing of the complaint and ongoing disputes involving ADOR and its parent company.
