Japanese woman sues employer after boss sends her pornographic images

Here’s a peculiar case.

As reported in Bengo4, a woman is suing her employer in Japan for enabling sexual harassment.

Her company failed to act after it was alleged the woman’s section chief sent her around 150 pornographic images. They were sent to her at the company address over three occasions between January and April 2020, with the third batch alone containing 100 photos and an adult toy. The woman in her thirties is seeking ¥4.4 million in damages in the lawsuit that began at Tokyo District Court on March 30.

The man in his fifties sent them to her by private post anonymously. She used a handwriting analysis to identify the sender from the address label. In June 2020, it suggested that her section chief did it.

She then told her employer and the man admitted that he sent the photos when he was questioned.

The woman wanted the firm to discipline the section chief and keep them apart from each other. She found herself suffering from anxiety, insomnia, and an inability to concentrate when the man was in the office.

However, the firm did nothing, viewing the problem as a private matter between two individuals and that they couldn’t act until the police did something. They even suggested that all would have been fine if the man had not been caught out by his handwriting.

In March 2021, the woman left the firm, where she had worked as a full-time employee since 2015.

She also had little luck with the police, who she went to in March 2020. After the handwriting analysis pointed to the section chief, they conducted a search of his home in August 2020.

They could not bring stalking charges, since there was no evidence of obsession or grudge. It is certainly illegal to distribute obscene materials, but these were sent by private mail. The apparent lack of malicious intent also meant the sender could not be charged with violating local ordinances against causing a public nuisance.

The inability of the police to act further convinced the firm that they did not need to act in this case, prompting the woman to sue.

Did the perpetrator know he was safe from prosecution by these legal loopholes? Or did he just get really lucky?