Min Hee-jin, the CEO of ADOR, has publicly responded to accusations made by a former employee, identified as "B," who claimed to have been mistreated after reporting sexual harassment by a senior executive. 

On August 13, Min Hee-jin issued a statement refuting these allegations, explaining that B was not a junior staff member but a high-ranking employee with a salary of 130 million KRW (approximately 98,800 USD), making them the highest-paid member of ADOR.

Min Hee-jin asserted that B's sexual harassment claims were exaggerated and contained numerous inaccuracies. According to Min, the incidents reported by B were investigated by HYBE's HR department, which found no evidence of wrongdoing. Despite this, B later accused Min Hee-jin of being biased and not taking the claims seriously, even though Min asserts she acted objectively and fairly throughout the process.

Min expressed frustration over the situation, noting that she had tried to protect the privacy of those involved but felt compelled to clarify the facts due to the spread of false information. She also criticized B for publicly attacking her via social media and media outlets, suggesting that B's actions were part of a broader attempt to undermine her leadership.

The controversy has drawn significant public attention, particularly as B appeared on JTBC’s Newsroom to discuss the allegations. Min Hee-jin concluded her statement by urging an end to what she described as a smear campaign against her and called for a focus on the truth.

Here is the full statement of Min Hee-jin's :

Hello, this is Min Hee-jin.

Despite expressing multiple times my desire not to be involved in these exhausting and futile matters, continuous attacks based on distorted and false information persist, so I must set the record straight.

Even though I issued a formal statement regarding Dispatch's false reporting, the injustices were not resolved, so I had no choice but to disclose the related KakaoTalk conversation through my Instagram story to clarify my position. However, at midnight on the 9th, B posted a statement that coincidentally aligned with Dispatch’s claims, and today, B also gave an interview on JTBC. I can no longer keep quiet about what I have endured and must now share my position on these matters.

From the beginning, this incident seemed to be a baseless attempt to find fault with me in order to push for my dismissal, unrelated to B. Considering B's position, who was unintentionally dragged into this, I refrained from revealing all the facts and handled the situation carefully.

For third parties to fully understand the facts, all the circumstances among those involved must be revealed. However, doing so could lead to further harm, so although it was frustrating, I tried to clarify the facts without exposing the complicated personal issues involved.

However, B suddenly appeared, spreading false information such as that I only supported Vice President A and that I lied, while also claiming that I was not objective as a CEO. These distorted facts and demands for a public apology have led me to believe that this is no longer just a personal issue. Therefore, I feel obligated to clarify the facts and ask for your understanding as I explain the full details.

B is not a new employee. B is in a seventh-year position with a base salary equivalent to an executive level, at 130 million KRW (excluding incentives), making them the highest-paid employee at ADOR.

2.

Although B had no experience in the entertainment industry, a high salary was offered considering B's educational background and previous job compensation demands. My hiring philosophy does not place importance on gender or age, and given the urgent need for a business leader at the time, I wanted to encourage B to fulfill the responsibilities that matched the high salary they requested.

Additionally, since there was a six-month probationary period ('Win Together' at HYBE), I believed that during this time, B's actual abilities would be assessed, and adjustments to salary and incentives would be made upon formal employment.

3.

As mentioned, the probationary period was crucial for a leadership position. B was expected to handle basic team setup and management independently, but contrary to expectations, there were numerous issues and disappointments from the onboarding period, including frequent mistakes in basic work emails that had to be corrected by Vice President A or myself. Many issues arose, leading to unexpected and disappointing situations.

4.

Other employees frequently reported difficulties in communication and collaboration with B, and I, along with other executives, often had to mediate these situations. As a result, employees who were unaware of B's salary naturally perceived B as a junior employee. B also recognized this situation and struggled with it, and even before the incident with Vice President A, B expressed a desire to report colleagues for violating the Respect@Work (RW) policy, leading me to doubt B's abilities as a business leader or strategic head.

Effort and performance are separate issues. Given that B was hired for a leadership position with the highest compensation among ADOR employees, it was essential to evaluate performance and ensure fairness in compensation compared to other employees. Despite B's efforts, the low output and poor work performance are documented.

5.

Nevertheless, I recognized B's struggles and wanted to give B a chance. Understanding the difficulties B faced with Vice President D and other colleagues, I thought that changing B's work environment might help, so I entrusted the newly joined Vice President A to lead and support B.

However, even after the leadership change, B's low output continued to cause friction.

6.

Due to these issues, B's performance evaluation at the end of the probationary period was not favorable. The 360-degree feedback from colleagues, including team members, was below average. Given the issues of fairness in compensation and work performance, the executives, excluding myself, concluded that continuing to employ B would be difficult.

Vice President A was responsible for giving the final score and making the decision regarding B's evaluation.

7.

During the process of ending the probationary period, discussions were held about reducing B's salary and adjusting B's roles and responsibilities (R&R) (mid-February). B agreed to the salary reduction but did not respond to Vice President A's request to share the tasks B felt capable of handling. In the meantime, B expressed the intention to resign to another vice president on February 28 and then filed an RW complaint against Vice President A on March 6.

The contents of B's RW complaint were as follows:
(RW = Respect@Work)

1. Sexual Harassment Report Example

Summary of the situation: ADOR Vice President A requested that I attend a dinner meeting with an advertiser, which included alcohol, even though I felt my attendance was unnecessary. A requested my presence because I was a "young woman" in charge. As a result, I attended a dinner meeting with the advertiser in Cheongdam-dong on February 15.

[2/15 Meeting with OOO Timeline]

① On the day before the dinner, February 14, the venue was initially reserved at Mongjungheon, a Chinese restaurant in Cheongdam-dong, but due to reservation difficulties, it was changed to 'Izakaya Makoto Cheongdam' at 6 p.m.

② On February 15, around 5 p.m., Vice President A called B to inform them that they had a meeting in the evening and would leave after an hour.

③ The dinner started at 6 p.m., and Vice President A left around 7 p.m. after pre-paying for the meal.

④ After Vice President A left, B continued the dinner alone until 9-10 p.m.

⑤ At 10:37 p.m. on February 15, B provided a summary of the meeting in the group chat at my request. I then challenged the purpose of the meeting and suggested that such meetings should not be held in the future.

Additionally, during an exit interview with HRBP, B stated that the main reason for resigning was Vice President A (80%), with the remaining 20% being due to feeling unsuited for the organization. B decided to resign after being told that B's salary would be reduced by over 40%.

(The above information was provided by HYBE HR.)

8.

Several discrepancies were found in the RW sexual harassment complaint.

a. Clear purpose of the meeting

At that time, B was responsible for managing the advertiser. The purpose of the meeting, including dinner and a showroom visit, was a business meeting, and this was shared among A, B, and the global brand advertiser C. Given that the meeting was arranged for business reasons, the expression "being forced to attend" is questionable. B was managing this brand even before Vice President A joined ADOR, so B needed to follow up on the situation and the long-term plan after Vice President A took over.

When Vice President A asked B about the date and time, B replied, "The time is fine with me." B also said, "But I don't think I'm suitable for this meeting, so it would be better for the two of you to have dinner." Since the meeting was already planned with three parties, including the advertiser, Vice President A did not consider B's comment as a rejection but interpreted it as B being cautious due to past mistakes.

In the past, I had pointed out similar issues to B, where B scheduled unnecessary dinner meetings instead of handling matters through office meetings or phone calls, leading to wasted time without clear outcomes. Understanding this, Vice President A interpreted B's response as B being careful due to past criticisms.

Given this context, it is strange that B would describe the meeting as a "dinner that included alcohol" during the complaint.

b. Absence of unusual behavior, B's irony

The complaint omitted some details. After Vice President A left around 9:30 p.m., the dinner ended, and B and C walked to a nearby showroom four minutes away to conclude the meeting. This was verified by the payment records after Vice President A left.

However, the complaint made it seem like B was left alone at the dinner until 10 p.m. Additionally, during the dinner, both Vice President A and B voluntarily ordered a highball each. After Vice President A left for another meeting, B and the advertiser C voluntarily ordered three and two more drinks, respectively.

According to the advertiser C, B was very talkative, even discussing personal matters like friends, which C found to be very sociable. There was no forced drinking or pressure from anyone.

It is difficult to believe that B was the only one telling the truth while everyone else was lying. The omission of the showroom visit and the additional drink orders is problematic, but B was not intentionally left behind. B, as a responsible professional, should have been able to lead and make decisions during such meetings.

Yet, B emphasized being "left alone," which is clearly a distortion of the facts. Furthermore, no signs of unusual behavior were detected in the KakaoTalk messages exchanged afterward, which have been publicly disclosed.

c. Transparent location selection and intentional record-keeping

The location was chosen transparently. The group chat involving B showed that the advertiser C decided the meeting location. Initially, the plan was to reserve a Chinese restaurant, but due to unavailability, the venue was changed to a nearby izakaya. It was not a premeditated choice to have the meeting at a bar, and it is evident from the conversations that Vice President A did not insist on an izakaya.

Despite knowing these details, B emphasized "a dinner that included alcohol" when filing the complaint. The narrative that B was forced to attend a dinner at a bar is clearly distorted.

Moreover, the complaint included my comments, which were used out of context. My original comment was related to a previous issue I had pointed out to B, and it was unrelated to the sexual harassment complaint. The way B used my comments to create a misleading narrative was suspicious.

d. Conflicting claims

The core of the sexual harassment allegation is the comment about "young women." Vice President A insisted that they never used the term "young women," considering B's salary and experience, while B claimed otherwise. This creates a situation where both parties' claims contradict each other.

9.

B claims that the complaint was dismissed to discredit B's work performance, but the evaluation of B's performance was conducted by multiple team members, including the manager, through 360-degree feedback, and numerous records of work performance and related conversations exist. I was not involved in the evaluation process.

Before Vice President A joined, B had conflicts with Vice President D and other colleagues, and during a business trip with me, B expressed feelings of inadequacy and work-related difficulties, which I tried to console. B even agreed with the proposed solution of salary reduction. B had been eagerly anticipating Vice President A's arrival.

10.

To clarify the timeline, after the performance and compensation evaluation on February 22, B announced the decision to resign on March 2 and filed the sexual harassment and workplace harassment complaint on March 6.

Given the exaggerated wording and omissions in the complaint, such as "young women," "bar," "unwilling," and "left alone," I found it difficult to believe the entirety of B's complaint. The fact that my comments were also misinterpreted and used out of context further reinforced this belief.

11.

The investigation and resolution of this matter were entirely handled by HYBE HR. I was guided not to directly communicate with B to protect the complainant until the investigation was completed, so I could not engage in any discussions. The case was ultimately closed with no charges, and as previously disclosed on Instagram, the matter was resolved with reconciliation between A and B.

As a CEO

When there are conflicting claims, the situation must be evaluated based on objective facts and evidence. As soon as I was informed of the situation, I immediately checked the facts with Vice President A and advertiser C, who were involved, because I was advised not to contact the complainant.

Based on the context, timing, and facts, there were several questionable and unusual aspects. Particularly, A and B had a well-known conflict, even among other colleagues.

Sexual harassment is a serious issue that can leave a lasting stain on individuals and should not be handled lightly. In the current environment, where gender conflicts are heightened, such matters should not be exploited, especially as a woman who has deeply felt the hardships of working life for over 20 years. I am not inclined to think of people differently based on their gender, but I do not confuse human issues with gender issues.

There were several significant discrepancies between the claims and facts. Despite B's lack of performance, which did not meet the expectations set by the high salary, I overlooked these shortcomings and tried to accommodate B by changing roles and replacing B's leader. However, the complaint distorted the situation, reducing B's responsibilities and making it seem as if B were a powerless new employee.

B presented a confident image during the hiring process, boldly demanding a high salary, but in practice, B struggled and was not independent in the work. This is why a salary reduction was proposed.

I was extremely disappointed by B's behavior and even felt fearful. After the investigation concluded with no charges, I received a call from B before B's resignation, and I felt a sense of dread. However, I wanted to hear B's side of the story.

There was no need for me to take this step, but I wanted to understand B's situation. Despite my disappointment and anger, I re-examined the situation to see if there were any overlooked aspects.

As the KakaoTalk messages I disclosed show, I carefully listened to B's side and thoroughly checked with both sides.

In the end, I realized that the root of the problem was accumulated dissatisfaction, and I felt a mix of pity and frustration for both A and B. After their reconciliation, I wanted to offer B another opportunity, so I explored various options, but B ultimately decided to resign.

I have no reason to favor A or B as I haven't known either of them for long. If someone asks if I supported Vice President A due to the position, I would counter with why I would have approved a higher salary for B than for Vice President A. Conversely, dismissing this as favoritism due to the high salary is also a childish argument.

As a CEO and a third party, I only wanted to ensure that no one was wronged and to resolve misunderstandings so that everyone could move forward peacefully. Even when considering only the facts, excluding conflicting claims, it is evident that B's claims are flawed. I don't understand what the real intention behind B's "attempt to nullify" the evaluation is.

The assertion of a "power struggle" is as absurd as any other baseless claim. I wasn't involved in the investigation and only received the notification of the outcome, so how could any attempt to influence the outcome have been possible?

Who is feeding B these strange stories and causing them to attack me, a third party who was not even directly involved in the incident?

Suddenly Strange Developments

The issues are now becoming mixed up in strange ways. The indiscriminate use of provocative words like "sexual harassment" and "cover-up" is obscuring the truth and making it seem like there is some grand conspiracy, similar to the exaggerated claims about "a power struggle" that were never even submitted to the courts.

It is particularly suspicious that, despite not being directly involved in the controversy, I am being forcibly dragged into it and made the target of all the blame. The timing of B's appearance, suddenly demanding a public apology from me—who had worked to mediate the situation—during a time when HYBE is under heavy scrutiny from the media is very questionable.

I was told that the post B uploaded at midnight from a newly created account was immediately spread across online communities. I received news of this post at 12:01 a.m. through acquaintances, and I contacted B right away.

Although there was no editing in the KakaoTalk messages I disclosed, B described them as edited and false, so I asked B what was edited and what was a lie. B did not provide an answer, so I expressed my frustration and asked to speak on the phone, but B declined, requesting an explanation via KakaoTalk instead.

In today's interview, I saw a reference to "77 KakaoTalk messages." I tend to send short messages in succession, so it's shocking to see even the most trivial content being used to depict me as pressuring B. If I hadn't contacted B, there would have been complaints about that as well.

I sent my message, and after about 12 hours, I received a long reply from B. The tone was unlike B's usual manner, with expressions like "rejected stern warnings twice," and "granting you an opportunity," which felt like an older person's tone. The threatening tone and word choice were eerily similar to what I had seen before and sent chills down my spine.

If B had expressed dissatisfaction with my harsh language, I could have at least understood, but it was disappointing that B's issue was with my allegedly biased stance, not the harsh language. It was even more shocking that B referenced email exchanges between HYBE and me that B could not have known about.

When I asked what B meant by "granting an opportunity," B replied, "I was referring to the opportunity for you to publicly apologize, using the methods you often use when addressing the media." B demanded that I issue a public apology through my Instagram story, mirroring Dispatch's claims.

As you know, I only used Instagram stories once. I am not sure if this is the behavior of someone genuinely seeking an apology. The threatening comment, "If you do not publicly apologize for the same content as that media outlet, I will take action," does not seem like something B would say.

And that threat was indeed carried out today. This afternoon, I was contacted by JTBC, asking for my position because B had given an interview. Shortly after, an article was published by Sports Today claiming that Vice President A, who covered up the sexual harassment, was indeed involved in the "power struggle." The article was written by a reporter who had a history of writing negative articles about me.

It strongly suggests that there is a coordinated build-up to attack me, and it raises suspicions about whether B is acting alone.

There are still ongoing efforts to pressure me for my dismissal. I suspect that these actions are being carried out as part of that effort.

Errors in B's Instagram Post

Regarding the absurd claim that I was involved in the investigation and protected Vice President A, B's post on the 9th states, "From the time of the report, there was involvement in the investigation," and on the 7th page, it says, "There was involvement in the investigation from the beginning." Then B states, "Before the investigation even started, there was suspicion."

B's statements are inconsistent and confusing, with the tense shifting and the argument retreating. This inconsistency makes me question whether B's intent or the purpose of writing the statement was really their own.

What I expected from B was to perform their assigned duties to the best of their ability and produce results commensurate with their compensation. The amateurish comments like "I was once your fan," "I spent hundreds of thousands of won at the NewJeans shop," "I sent affectionate KakaoTalk messages," and "I offered loyalty" were not what I was looking for.

I also sent B affectionate KakaoTalk messages several times. Moreover, the hundreds of lines B claimed to have written diligently were complaints and accusations against Vice President A and other colleagues, not genuine expressions of effort.

I tried to protect B while conveying the facts without revealing these specific details, but after reading B's inconsistent post on the 9th and receiving a reply in a tone unfamiliar to B, the pain of protecting and caring for B became more acute.

The concept of a "victim" is not something that can be claimed by simply asserting it. If that were the case, everyone in the world could become a "victim" for their own reasons.

B should recall that after the incident was resolved, B confessed to Vice President A and me that B had been "cowardly and extreme" and thanked us for helping B reconcile.

False accusations made out of anger can destroy another person's life. Just as B's life is precious, B should realize that the lives of others are equally valuable.

B's salary was at the level of a middle-aged executive at a large corporation. B should reflect on their sense of "responsibility" in performing their duties. Due to the painful lessons from this case, my views on hiring and talent management have been shaken, and I will now think twice about setting salaries in future hires.

To clear up any misunderstandings, I am attaching all the details of B's workplace harassment complaint and HYBE HR's investigation results.

2. Workplace Harassment Case

① Example: Vice President A used the excuse of not having multitasking skills to make unreasonable demands on subordinates, and when those demands were not met, made personal attacks without hesitation.

Examples of personal attacks: "This is just an excuse ㅜㅜ I'll stop talking now ㅜㅜㅜ I can't coach you ㅜㅜㅜ"

② Example: A subordinate suggested that the statements made by the higher-ups during the team leader meeting be communicated to the team, but Vice President A over-interpreted this suggestion and made personal attacks.

Examples of personal attacks: "Why don't you just do what you're told instead of giving advice to me?" "You got scolded for saying something unnecessary again." "My weekend time is precious too, and when you speak, I have to read and respond again."

③ Example: During the negotiation of the resignation date, Vice President A insisted on March 22, and when this was not agreed upon, made personal attacks by calling B a "nuisance."

Examples of personal attacks: Vice President A insisted on March 22 as the resignation date. B refused, saying they couldn't simply set a date, but Vice President A responded, "The company said March 29, but if you can't accept that, it has to be March 22."

"You're a nuisance to me. Do you understand? You're a nuisance twice now." The use of the words "nuisance" and the tone used were inappropriate.

④ Other examples: There were also issues with Vice President A using a loud, irritated tone in the office's common areas and a nervous tone during meetings.

March 14, 2024 (Thursday) 6:56 p.m.

Hello, Ms. Hee-jin,

We conducted an investigation regarding the RW complaint shared last week and found that the incident "cannot be deemed as workplace sexual harassment or workplace harassment."

However, as there were inappropriate behaviors for a label VP, we suggest that you, as the CEO, give a verbal warning.

Please refer to the attached file (link) for detailed information, and feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.

(The above is information provided by HYBE HR.)

In Conclusion

I ask again:
-How will B explain the false information in B's sexual harassment complaint?

-The disciplinary action against Vice President A was decided by HYBE, so why is B targeting me through the media instead of addressing the issue with HYBE?

-Why is B not condemning the individuals who illegally obtained and edited the information and provided it to Dispatch, but instead attacking me over this?

If B had not made a false sexual harassment complaint, I would not have been disappointed with B.

Why does B trust the illegally obtained and edited KakaoTalk messages but accuse the original unedited messages exchanged with me of being fabricated?

From whom did B receive the information that B couldn't have known?

The high salary B received was decided by me, a fellow woman. If gender or experience were factors, B would not have received such compensation.

What did B find unfair? Was B denied time off? Does B think the low output, unworthy of the high salary, should be overlooked?

Feelings are personal, and someone might misunderstand that B received special treatment. What can be said if such misunderstandings arise?

I assigned B a salary higher than that of a middle-aged male vice president, despite B being younger and less experienced, because I believed in B's potential and expected exceptional work performance. Does this mean I was showing favoritism towards women, making me a radical feminist?

The people B should apologize to are not me, but those who illegally obtained, edited, and provided the information to Dispatch.

B must realize that B was dragged into this sordid situation and exploited by those people. Whether B did this voluntarily or was coerced, spreading false information and defaming others is wrong, so B should refrain from getting involved in this complicated matter any further.

No one in this world is insignificant.

Who is currently being subjected to secondary, tertiary, and further harassment with their real name exposed?

I have tried to be patient and not provide this explanation, but while the other individuals involved are referred to by their initials and are being protected, I don't understand why I am being dragged into such a ridiculous incident, forced to have my innermost thoughts scrutinized, and put in a position to defend myself.

Those who are desperately trying to create something out of nothing, manipulate the situation, and orchestrate public outrage by cleverly involving others at the right time should stop their inhumane actions immediately.

SEE ALSO: Legal experts give their insight on Min Hee Jin's dismissal as ADOR CEO