<figure id="attachment_390136" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 1024px;" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-390136"><a href="#" data-ident_hash="aee98919"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/fridaydigital/image/private/t_article_image/wpmedia/2024/09/9d2dad03708602883eb80b21cd5aedbd.jpg" alt=""></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-390136" class="wp-caption-text">In June of this year, I visited Hualien County, the area affected by the earthquake off the eastern coast of Taiwan, and met with County Commissioner Hsu Chen-wei. I presented a donation of 10 million yen on behalf of my organization, Amicié Sans Frontières. Amid my active fundraising efforts, I was also engaged in a legal battle with a former employee.</figcaption></figure>
It was revealed through an interview with Friday Digital that Lady Dewi Sukarno (84) is engaged in a legal battle with a former employee of her company, Office Deva Sukarno, and is currently experiencing a series of defeats in labor arbitration and court cases.
The events leading to the lawsuit date back to three years ago, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
&#8220;You no longer need to worry about meeting me. It was terminated last Friday (February 12).&#8221; (All quotes are excerpts from the lawsuit records.)
&nbsp;
The reasons two employees were terminated.
On February 14, 2021, two veteran employees of the Devi office (hereinafter referred to as Mr. A and Mr. B) received an email from Madame Devi informing them of their termination, referred to as &#8220;discontinuation.&#8221; In response, Mr. A and Mr. B filed for labor arbitration. This marked the beginning of a legal battle between Madame Devi and the two former employees.
The reason for the termination of the two employees was Madame Devi&#8217;s trip to Indonesia.
On February 3, 2021, Madame Devi received the sad news of her son-in-law, Mr. Fritz&#8217;s sudden passing. Understanding the emotional state of her daughter, who had lost her husband at a young age, Madame Devi traveled to Indonesia the following day, February 4, to attend Mr. Fritz&#8217;s funeral. However, in February 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic was spreading rapidly worldwide, with Japan in the midst of its third wave and Indonesia reporting over 10,000 new cases daily.
Given this situation, the employees were concerned, wondering if Mr. Fritz had died from COVID-19. They feared that Madame Devi might return infected. Additionally, since Madame Devi&#8217;s residence was in the same building as the office, the employees felt an increased sense of urgency about avoiding contact with her while working. Consequently, they decided to hold a meeting and agreed that they would not come into the office for two weeks after Madame Devi&#8217;s return, opting for remote work instead. They communicated this plan to her when she returned to the office on February 12.
&#8220;You, what are you talking about? I&#8217;m not a pathogen or anything!&#8221;
The lady reportedly became furious. Furthermore,
&#8220;I&#8217;m sorry, but I have a much lower risk of infection than you all. You’re the ones who ride the train and the bus. (omission) It’s strange, you. If you&#8217;re that scared, you don’t have to come. This is such a hassle. I absolutely hate feeling this uncomfortable.&#8221;
&nbsp;
After this backlash, the employees seemed unable to respond further. Following the incident, A, who is currently in a lawsuit with Ms. Devi, shared the following in a group LINE with other employees:
&nbsp;
&#8220;Is the lady afraid of COVID? She called us weird for being scared, but I believe everyone recognizes that COVID can be a deadly disease, so not wanting to get it is a common sentiment. (omission) I don’t think I’ll see you all again. (omission) Thank you for everything.&#8221;
&nbsp;
Then, on February 14, two days later, A and B received the aforementioned &#8220;termination notice&#8221; email from Ms. Devi.
<div data-friday-ad-slot="AD_inArticle"></div>
<div data-friday-nextpage-lead="The contents of Mrs. Devi's &quot;counterattack&quot; against the former employees"></div>
<h3>Recognize the obligation to pay.</h3>
In March 2022, about a year after the incident, individuals A and B, who had been &#8220;dismissed,&#8221; filed a labor tribunal case against the Devi Office to resolve their dispute regarding employment relations. In August of the same year, the Labor Tribunal Committee ruled that the Devi Office should pay each of the two individuals&#8230;
&#8220;Acknowledges the obligation to pay 3 million yen as a settlement amount.&#8221;
The decision, equivalent to a ruling in a regular lawsuit, was made. However, the Devi office objected to this decision, leading to litigation. This lawsuit is still ongoing. 
<h3></h3>
During the labor tribunal, a settlement proposal of 3 to 4 million yen was suggested. The two former employees, who were the plaintiffs, were willing to accept the proposal. However, Madame Dewi was:
<h3></h3>
&#8220;Clearly not satisfied with the terms of the proposal. The defendant (Madame Dewi) offered to pay only around 400,000 yen as a settlement.&#8221;
<h3></h3>
Because of this disagreement, Madame Dewi did not agree to the mediation and decided to counterattack by filing two lawsuits against former employees A and B.
<h3></h3>
Case 1: In July 2022, Madame Dewi filed a lawsuit against A and B in the Tokyo District Court, claiming that they had led other employees to form an agreement to illegally ostracize (legally defined as &#8220;expelling a member who disrupts order or customs through group exclusion&#8221;) her and had refused to report to work at the Dewi Office.
<h3></h3>
Case 2: In April 2023, the Dewi Office, not Madame Dewi personally, sued A and B in the Tokyo District Court. The lawsuit claimed that A and B wrongly believed Madame Dewi to be infected with COVID-19 or to be a close contact, inciting other employees to obstruct her from coming to work and not reporting to work themselves. Additionally, they caused significant damage by filing a labor tribunal request in March 2022, which was deemed highly unreasonable.
<div data-friday-ad-slot="AD_inArticle"></div>
<div data-friday-nextpage-lead="This is an extremely inhumane and self-serving act."></div>
<figure id="attachment_390322" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 973px;" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-390322"><a href="#" data-ident_hash="d75be7be"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/fridaydigital/image/private/t_article_image/wpmedia/2024/09/f8327b088be4ba859f75d823d260e7ac.png" alt=""></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-390322" class="wp-caption-text">On August 24, Madame Dewi introduced her beloved dog on Instagram. She has expressed deep affection for her dogs, saying she has &#8220;ten of them.&#8221; However, it seems that this love did not extend to her employees.</figcaption></figure>
The outcomes of the lawsuits are as follows:
Case 1: Madame Dewi lost in the first instance (November 2023) and again in the appeals court (May this year).
Case 2: Madame Dewi also lost in the first instance (August 22 of this year).
As such, Madame Dewi has been on the losing side in these cases. However, she certainly has her own perspective:
&#8220;When I returned home completely exhausted, alone, and unable to muster the strength to unpack my suitcase, I had to care for my dogs early the next morning—cleaning up their messes, taking them for walks, changing the blue tarps for their use, replacing the sparrow feed, vacuuming the living room and kitchen, and feeding ten dogs, all while answering numerous phone calls. Can you imagine how challenging this was for an 81-year-old? It was an incredibly inhumane and selfish act.&#8221;
<h2>No employees reported to work.</h2>
On the day after her return and the following day, no employees reported to work, leaving Madame Dewi alone in her spacious home-office with her ten dogs.
FRIDAY Digital sent a written inquiry to Madame Dewi&#8217;s office regarding the situation:
&nbsp;
&#8220;The personal lawsuit has been lost in the high court, and the corporate lawsuit was lost in the first instance. Additionally, the labor tribunal ruled that you should pay 3 million yen each to the two former employees. Could you please share your thoughts on this?&#8221;
&nbsp;
&#8220;You suggested the dismissal of the two employees in a statement on February 12, 2021, and sent an email on February 14. What actions or behaviors of theirs did you find unacceptable?&#8221;
&nbsp;
In response, while acknowledging the existence of the lawsuits, they only stated:
&nbsp;
&#8220;We decline interviews and will refrain from commenting on matters related to ongoing litigation.&#8221;
&nbsp;
At 84 years old, it seems there’s a hope for Madame Dewi to adopt a more conciliatory approach.
<div data-friday-ad-slot="AD_inArticle"></div>

 Shinsuke Sakai

 Kyodo News

 FRIDAY Digital has learned that Mrs. Devi is in a court battle with a former employee and continues to lose. What are the two sides continuing to fight over? We will unravel the details from the court records.

Lady Dewi Sukarno Loses Court Case Against Former Employee Who Refused to Come to Work

Access Ranking