Tensions have escalated between ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin and a former female employee, identified as "Ms. B," over allegations of sexual harassment and workplace bullying at ADOR. The core issue centers on whether Min improperly interfered with the investigation. Min Hee Jin claims that Ms. B filed a "false report in retaliation" due to dissatisfaction with her workplace. 

However, some argue that Min Hee Jin’s defense is merely an attempt to deflect from the real issue.

In a recent interview with Kookmin Ilbo, Ms. B stated that her case was mishandled after a management dispute between HYBE and ADOR surfaced. She stated, “In this emotional conflict between HYBE and ADOR, I, a regular employee and victim, have been left unprotected.” 

Ms. B, who joined ADOR in September of last year, filed complaints of sexual harassment and workplace bullying against Executive A on March 6 and resigned two weeks later. Executive A had previously been implicated with Min Hee Jin on breach of trust charges.

The complaint was filed with HYBE’s internal ethics team, citing one instance of sexual harassment and seven cases of workplace bullying. Since ADOR lacks an HR department, HYBE was responsible for investigating. HYBE’s team shared the details with Min Hee Jin, who responded by calling the allegations biased and retaliatory.

After meeting with both parties, HYBE concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claims but recommended a "stern warning" to Executive A to prevent future misunderstandings. Min Hee Jin, however, added Executive A to the email chain, allowing him to monitor the investigation in real-time. This move raised concerns, as it allowed the accused to gain an upper hand in the investigation.

Labor experts have noted that while Min Hee Jin’s actions may not have been illegal, they were inappropriate for her role. Jang In Ki, a labor attorney, outlined three key issues: whether Min Hee Jin had a responsibility to ensure an objective investigation, the timing of her involvement, and whether her actions influenced the outcome.

Ms. B expressed her frustration with Min’s lack of neutrality, stating that Min Hee Jin failed to mediate the situation fairly, even though HYBE had recommended a warning. Ms. B also refuted Min Hee Jin's claims that she was unable to contact Ms. B directly under the company’s rules, pointing out that both parties should have been equally restricted from contact, yet Min Hee Jin communicated only with Executive A.

Ms. B has since announced her intent to pursue legal action against Min Hee Jin, HYBE, and Executive A, while also filing a complaint with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, claiming her case was mishandled.

This case continues to raise important questions about workplace ethics, power dynamics, and corporate responsibility in handling serious allegations like sexual harassment and bullying.

SEE ALSO: Min Hee Jin responds to the court decision denying her reinstatement as ADOR CEO