Dewi Fujin Ordered to Pay ¥29 Million After Rejecting Settlement

The settlement was supposed to be reached for 6 million yen.

On December 12, 2024, the first-instance ruling in a labor lawsuit filed by two former employees of Madame Dewi’s company was handed down. She was ordered to pay approximately 29 million yen, including interest, to the two former employees.

The verdict was considered a complete defeat for Madame Dewi. Originally, the settlement was supposed to be for 6 million yen. However, after Madame Dewi rejected the settlement proposal, she was ultimately forced to pay the much larger sum of 29 million yen.

The lawsuit stemmed from February 2021, when the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. While Madame Dewi was traveling in Indonesia, her employees became concerned that she might return infected with the virus. They decided that for two weeks after her return, they would work from home instead of coming into the office. When this decision was communicated to Madame Dewi, she became enraged and announced the dismissal of all employees. Among them, two employees, A and B, were actually fired.

The following is an excerpt from an email Madame Dewi sent to employee A: “To those who treat me like a pathogen, even though I have a negative test, I felt anger. You are suffering from COVID-phobia. I cannot work with people who hurt my personality, so I believe you won’t be coming to the office anymore. (Long text omitted) You will never meet me again, so don’t worry.”

It seems that being treated as a pathogen after returning from Indonesia deeply wounded Madame Dewi’s pride, leading to the emotional dismissal of the two employees.

About a year later, in March 2022, the two dismissed employees, A and B, filed a labor tribunal against Office Dewi Sukarno (Dewi’s office). A labor tribunal is a judicial system designed to quickly and fairly resolve labor disputes between workers and employers. In August of the same year, a decision was made recognizing a payment obligation of 6 million yen as a settlement fee. However, Madame Dewi appealed this decision, and the case eventually escalated into a full lawsuit.

For more details on the case, you can refer to the Friday Digital article from September 12, 2024.

[Exclusive] “I am not a pathogen or anything else” — Madame Dewi loses lawsuit with former employees who refused to return to the office.

https://friday.kodansha.co.jp/article/390133

The claims of both parties contradict each other.

The key issue in the lawsuit was whether the dismissal of the two former employees was valid or not. Madame Dewi’s side argued that:

“The two employees clearly agreed to resign after consulting with the office’s representative lawyer over the phone.”

On the other hand, the two employees countered:

“We only stated that we might consider agreeing to a voluntary resignation if Dewi’s office recognized the dismissal as invalid and offered some monetary compensation.”

The court, however, sided with the plaintiffs, A and B, ruling that the dismissal was invalid, meaning that their employment continued. Lawyer Ayao Masaki, the representative of the law firm Your Ace, which specializes in labor issues, commented on the ruling:

“Dewi’s office claimed that the two employees were no longer part of the company and thus stopped paying them. However, the court’s decision orders them to pay the overdue salaries starting from April 2021. A’s monthly salary was 270,000 yen, and B’s was 300,000 yen. Furthermore, if wages are not paid on time, they must be paid with a statutory interest rate of 3%. This means that for each delayed month, the wages must be paid with an additional 3% interest until fully paid. For example, the 270,000 yen due on April 30, 2021, would now have interest added, making it almost 300,000 yen.”

In other words, the court ordered that Dewi’s office pay a total of 570,000 yen per month in wages, along with the accrued interest, from April 2021 onwards. Additionally, the court recognized the employees’ claims for unpaid overtime. As a result, the total amount Dewi’s office had to pay, as of the December 2024 ruling, amounted to approximately 29 million yen. The prolonged court battle meant that the amount owed grew exponentially over time, as the employment relationship was deemed to have continued during the lawsuit.

Furthermore, court documents contained the following details.

She rejected the settlement proposals twice.

In terms of early resolution of the dispute, the labor tribunal proposed a settlement ranging from 3 million to 4 million yen (the settlement amount for employee A). Both parties were asked to take this proposal and consider it. On June 30, 2022, the second hearing took place, and for the first time, the defendant’s representative, Sukarno, appeared. Both the plaintiff (employee A) and defendant B were willing to accept the proposal, but Sukarno appeared unsatisfied with the terms of the settlement. The defendant’s side proposed a settlement of approximately 400,000 yen, but the plaintiffs found this amount unacceptable and rejected it.

As a result, the mediation seemed to fail. However, the defendant’s representative requested another hearing, hoping to persuade Sukarno to reconsider. On August 2, 2022, the third hearing took place, but once again, the defendant was not willing to accept the mediation proposal. Consequently, on the same day, the labor tribunal issued a decision, proposing a settlement of 3 million yen and an agreement on voluntary resignation. Later, the defendant filed an objection to the labor tribunal’s decision, leading to the case transitioning into a full lawsuit.

In other words, the reason Dewi was forced to pay such a large sum was due to her rejecting the settlement proposal twice during the labor tribunal process. If she had accepted the proposed 600,000 yen settlement at that stage, the case could have been resolved.

As lawyer Ayao Masaki noted, “While I am not directly involved, based on the exchanges recognized in the lawsuit, it seems difficult to believe there was any clear agreement to resign. In Japan, labor protections are strong, and dismissals are tightly regulated. Additionally, considering Dewi’s office tried to persuade her during the tribunal, it seems unlikely that they would have ended up paying nothing.”

The labor tribunal system is designed for quick judgments, so evidence is often not fully considered. It was not wrong for Dewi to opt for a lawsuit in order to ensure that all the facts were thoroughly reviewed. Perhaps she didn’t want to leave the conclusion ambiguous, especially given the personal impact on her reputation.

“Maybe Mrs. Devi thought, ‘It’s fine if I lose!’ and charged ahead. However, the amount she had to pay to the two employees ballooned from 6 million yen to 29 million yen, an increase of 23 million yen. What does Mrs. Devi think about this court ruling? I inquired with her office about the possibility of an appeal.”

“Please refrain from commenting.”

And so, it was impossible to gauge her feelings. It seems unlikely that she would appeal and continue to fight.