Professor Loses Retrial in Sexual Harassment Case Over Mentioning Adult Films in Class

(CNA, Taipei, May 21) A university professor, surnamed Yang, was found by his university to have committed sexual harassment for mentioning adult films and directing students to take male-female photos in specified poses during a digital imaging techniques course. Yang sued to challenge the decision. A first-instance ruling that had overturned the university's disciplinary action was later annulled and sent back for a retrial. The retrial has now ruled in favor of the university, finding the original decision was correct and that the actions constituted sexual harassment, resulting in a judgment against the professor.
The retrial ruling from the Taipei High Administrative Court stated that Professor Yang required students to perform photo poses involving intimate physical contact, including a "princess carry," jumping hugs, sitting on laps, and swimwear shoots. These all involved personal boundaries and gender-sensitive matters, and students had clearly expressed feelings of awkwardness, discomfort, unwillingness, or concern.
The retrial panel found that Professor Yang's persistent demands and coordination of photo methods in the classroom were sufficient to create a coercive, unwelcome learning environment for students under an unequal power relationship. This placed them in an oppressive and hostile learning environment, meeting the criteria for sexual harassment under the Gender Equity Education Act, defined as "unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature or with sexual implications that adversely affects a person's personal dignity or learning environment."
The retrial court found Professor Yang's lawsuit to be without merit and recently ruled against him. He can still appeal.
The case originated from a complaint to the university regarding Professor Yang's course in 2019, which alleged frequent use of images of nude women in teaching materials, classroom remarks about "adult films," the "AV industry," and "girls' panties," and directing students to take male-female photos in specified poses during a photography class.
After the university's Gender Equity Education Committee accepted the case, it formed an investigation team. The team concluded that Yang's classroom conduct was indeed unwelcome and had sexual implications that affected the personal dignity of the students, thus constituting sexual harassment. While not deemed severe enough for dismissal or termination, considering the inappropriateness of his classroom speech and behavior, the university ordered Yang to undergo off-campus psychological counseling at his own expense and attend an 8-hour gender equality education course.
Yang's appeal of the decision was rejected, after which he filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to revoke the original disciplinary action. The case was heard by the Taipei High Administrative Court.
The first-instance court initially ruled that the university's fact-finding was flawed and revoked the disciplinary action. The case was appealed, and the Supreme Administrative Court, in the second instance, found errors in the original court's fact-finding and application of the law, annulling the judgment and remanding the case for a retrial. The retrial has now affirmed the university's original decision, finding it correct and constituting sexual harassment.