透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.149.233.72
  • 學位論文

校園性騷擾防治法制之研究 —以美國民權法1972年教育增修 條文第九章關於學校責任為中心—

A Research on Campus Sexual Harassment Preventive Legal Institution-A Study in Academic Institution Accountability on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 of Civil Rights Laws

指導教授 : 陳櫻琴

摘要


摘要 時有耳聞的國內外校園性騷擾案件,本質上屬於一種性別歧視的行為。在過去,性騷擾被誤認為是學習過程中的一種普遍經驗;其對於受害學生、學校甚至整個社會產生的負面影響,以及牴觸性別平等教育權理念的部分,至今才逐漸受到各界重視。 鑒於校園性騷擾對於學生們的學業表現、情緒、以及生、心理層面影響甚鉅,我國政府為確保每位學生均能在安全的校園環境中成長學習,已於2004年制定性別平等教育法規範;教育部亦於2005年依據性別平等教育法,制定校園性侵害或性騷擾防治準則,以降低發生率。 美國因校園性騷擾事件發生頻繁,故自1972年即制定教育增修條文第九章(Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ),授權教育部民權處頒布處理校園性騷擾指導原則,並指導各級學校處理此類事件。此外,民權處本身亦提供外部申訴程序來處理此類糾紛。1992年起,美國聯邦最高法院亦針對性騷擾事件做成三項相關判決,對於校方疏於處理此類事件時,加重其所須擔負之損害賠償責任,類似經驗足供我國參考。 我國性別平等教育法對於學校疏於處理或不處理性騷擾等事件,並未明確規定校方所須擔負之損害賠償責任;反之,美國教育部民權處之指導原則及其聯邦最高法院判決的意見,分別對學校處置義務以及損害賠償責任之成立與否,具有明確的判斷標準與要件。因而,本文除對我國現行法律規範做一整體檢視外,亦針對美國行之多年的制度加以綜合比較評析優劣,以作為我國未來修法之參考。 本文將分為六個章節鋪陳闡述我國性別平等教育法對性騷擾的定義與區分類型;同時探究立法目的、規範對象、申訴、調查等程序。第一章緒論,說明本論文之研究動機、目的以及研究範圍與方法。第二章主要探討台、美兩國法律的性騷擾定義與分類、性騷擾發生原因之相關理論,以及比較分析台、美法律之定義異同。第三章係探討兩國之立法目的、規範對象,進而比較其差異。第四章研究台、美對於校園性騷擾案件之處理程序,並比較兩國法律之優劣。第五章探討美國司法實務案例以及學校損害賠償責任之成立要件與判斷標準;同時探討我國台中市○○國小老師性侵害與猥褻學生案,法院首次從國家賠償角度判決校方必須對老師性騷擾學生承擔之損害賠償責任;最後,分析比較台、美兩國法院對於學校損害賠償責任的成立要件之差異。第六章為結論,總結本論文之研究發現。

並列摘要


Abstract Campus sexual harassment at the home and abroad that we hear sometimes is a kind of sex discrimination in essence. In the past, sexual harassment was misunderstood as a general experience in the learning process; which is a negative effect to student suffers, schools even the whole society and also interferes the concept of gender equity education right. Now days it has been gradually attention-getting by the general public. Campus sexual harassment tremendously affects students’ academic performance, emotion, psychology and physiology; therefore, in order to make sure each student can grow up and study at the safe campus environment, our government set up the norm of gender equity education law in 2004. For sexual assault or sexual harassment, The Ministry of Education also set up the prevention guideline in 2005 according to gender equity education law to decrease occurrences. Incidents of campus sexual harassment are frequent in America; therefore, the US government established the Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972, authorized the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education to promulgate guiding principles for dealing with campus sexual harassment and helps schools to deal with this kind of incidents. In addition, the Office for Civil Rights also provides external grievance procedure to handle this kind of dispute. Since 1992, aiming at the sexual harassment cases, the US Supreme Court also gave three related judgments to schools which are negligent in dealing with such incidents and will increase their liability for damages. Therefore, our government could take this similar experience as reference. With regard to schools which are negligent in dealing with or does not deal with the sexual harassment cases, our gender equality education law does not clearly regulate the liability for damages to them. On the contrary, the guiding principle of US Office for Civil Rights of Department of Education and the judging opinion of Federal Supreme Court separately have the accurate judging standard and essentials to disposal obligation and liability for damage to schools. Therefore, this article is written to completely overview our current law and also according to the US system which has been practicing for many years to make a comprehensive comparison so as to take it as the reference for amending our law in the future. This article is divided into sex chapters to explain definitions and types of sexual harassment made by our gender equity education law. Meanwhile, to discuss the purpose of legislation, the object of the norm, the complainant and investigation, etc. Chapter 1 is the introduction to explain the motivation, the purpose, study areas and methods of this article. Chapter 2 mainly discusses definitions and classifications, the related theories of causes of sexual harassments; meanwhile, to compare and analyze legal definitions of Taiwan and US. Chapter 3 is to discuss legislative goals, objects of norms of Taiwan and US; furthermore, to compare the differences between these two countries. Chapter 4 is to study the handling procedure of campus sexual harassments of Taiwan and US and to compare advantages and disadvantages of laws in these two countries. Chapter 5 is to study the US judicial practice cases and essentials of liability for damage as well as the criteria for judging. Meanwhile, to discuss the case of sexual assault and insulting students committed by a teacher of Shang An elementary school in Taichung city. It was the first time that the court at the angle of the state compensation judged the school should take the liability for damage. Finally, to analyze and compare the difference of essentials to liability for damage established by courts of Taiwan and US. Chapter 6 is the summary to sum up the research of this article.

參考文獻


高鳳仙,性騷擾之行政救濟及調解案例分析,全國律師,第9期,頁72-85(2006)。
人本教育基金會電子報
蕭靜芬,餐飲職場性騷擾與工作滿意、組織承諾與離職傾向之相關研究-以國際觀光飯店餐飲外場員
邱琦, 工作場所性騷擾民事責任之研究,台大法學論叢,第34卷2期,頁181-213(2005)。
高鳳仙,性暴力防治法規,新學林出版社,2005。

被引用紀錄


陳瞻吾(2011)。性別工作平等法、性別平等教育法、性騷擾防治法之研究-以大學校園之適用為中心〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201100114
楊佩娟(2015)。國軍職場性騷擾防治機制之研究〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614015892
李中贏(2015)。高級中學建教生於建教合作機構遭遇性騷擾法律問題之研究〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614011161

延伸閱讀