Highly anticipated decision keeps current standard for discrimination
By Chief Legal Correspondent Kim So-ra
HWAGANG: The High Court of Haesan upheld the decision of the Second District Circuit Court of Appeals in the anti-discrimination case Shah et al. v. HS Entertainment et al. The listed plaintiffs, 14 former Hae-pop idol trainees of Andhran, Serrielian, and Lehvantine descent, alleged that HS Entertainment, Yura Records, and other prominent Hae-pop companies discriminated against them in the idol debut process as a result of their race. The 8–3 decision ends the case’s appeal process, and the original ruling in favor of the companies, upheld by the Second District Court, will remain in effect.
Plaintiffs’ arguments centered around proportionality, stating that there are disproportionately few idol trainees of Andhran, Serrielian, and Lehvantine descent who actually debut as part of a Hae-pop group, comprising 5% of the trainee population but only 0.3% of all debutantes. In earlier trials, the plaintiffs had also cited expert testimony from psychologists and sociologists who sought to distinguish why rigid enforcement of beauty standards would necessarily lead to the alleged discrimination. Defendants repeatedly pointed to the fact that there was no concrete factor in their debut process which referenced race, in accordance with current race-neutral standards in Haesanite law. They further claimed that the prosecution did not show with an abundance of proof of any factor or method considered in group formation decisions which would have consequently led to any discrimination, a pre-requisite for proving the current mechanism-based standard for employment discrimination on a protected characteristic.
Chief Justice Choi, in his majority decision, cited that precedent demanded a clear mechanism be illustrated as the basis for any discrimination, and that percentage based statistics alone were not suitable proof of active discrimination on part of the defendants. He further argued that the damages were not grave enough or clear enough to demand that precedent be changed as part of “grave judicial oversight,” the current doctrinal standard for amending common law. Justices Kwon, Aubin, and Lee Min-gyeong dissented, arguing that rankings for “charisma” and “stage presence” effectively account for race in a markedly discriminatory way, and that the metrics were impossible to isolate from the race of the trainee. The affirmed decision, first rendered in Suyang Province civil court, maintains the current standard for discrimination suits, allows Hae-pop companies to continue grading trainees as before, and voids all claims to damages by the plaintiffs.
