我國受僱者心理資訊隱私權保護法制之研究－美國經驗之啟示

A Research on the Legal System of the Protection of Employees' Information Privacy Rights in Taiwan: Inspiration from the U.S. Law

辛昀浩(Yun-Hao Hsin)

《中正大學法學集刊》 76期 (2022/07) Pp. 117-199

https://doi.org/10.53106/172876182022070076003

摘要

受僱者人格特質、性向及是否契合企業文化多為雇主作成僱用決定所重視者，惟其探求受僱者心理資訊時不無侵害受僱者隱私之可能，本文旨在衡平受僱者資訊隱私權與雇主經營需求，探討雇主取得、利用受僱者心理資訊之合法界線。我國固訂有個人資料保護法、就業服務法第五條第二項及同法施行細則第一條之一，惟該等規範未臻完備。衡諸美國透過美國身心障礙人士法（the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA）與受僱者測謊保護法（the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, EPPA），就受僱者心理資訊取得、利用設有周延之程序與實體規範，要件之認定亦較明確，且禁止雇主對受僱者不利對待。本文建議未來宜明定心理資訊之意涵、確明就業所需之認定，並就雇主蒐集受僱者心理資訊之正當程序、書面通知義務及不利對待禁止原則等加以規範。

關鍵字

心理測驗 ； 誠實測驗 ； 測謊 ； 心理資訊 ； 資訊隱私權 ； 就業服務法 ； 個人資料保護法 ； 美國身心障礙人士法 ； 受僱者測謊保護法

並列摘要

Employees' personality traits, career orientation, and suitability to corporate culture are the most critical factors that influence employers' employment decisions. Accordingly, employers have business interests in employees' psychological information. However, employers' endeavors to obtain such information are likely to violate employees' right to privacy. This article aims to balance employees' information privacy rights and employers' legitimate business necessity and explore the legal boundaries of employers' acquisition and use of employees' psychological information. In Taiwan, in spite of the enactment of the Personal Data Protection Act, Article 5(2) of the Employment Service Act, and Article 1-1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Employment Service Act, the laws are slightly insufficient to resolve the disputes that result in some problems unsolved when it comes to issues regarding employees' privacy. In the United States, the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 (ADA) and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988 (EPPA) has established comprehensive procedural and substantive regulations for the acquisition and the use of employees' psychological information and thus the identification of regulatory requirements seems much more evident. The acts mentioned above also help prevent employers from taking adverse actions against employees. After reviewing and analyzing the legal system in the United States, this article suggests some amendments to the laws in Taiwan, including explicit stipulation of the definition, scope of psychological information, and clarification of the determination of the private information related to employment. Moreover, this article further argues that the regulations regarding employers' due process of collecting employees' psychological information, the obligation of providing written notice to employees, and the principle of prohibition of adverse action should be taken into account in the future.

並列關鍵字

Psychological Tests ； Honesty Tests ； Polygraph Tests ； Psychological Information ； Informational Privacy ； Employment Service Act ； Personal Data Protection Act ； Americans with Disabilities Act ； Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988

參考文獻

Hogan, Joyce, Structure of Physical Performance in Occupational Tasks, 76 J. Appl. Psychol. 495 (1991).

Johnson, Peter C., Banning the Truth-Finder in Employment: The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 54 Missouri L. Rev. 156 (1989).

Kim, Pauline T., Data Mining and the Challenges of Protecting Employee Privacy under U.S. Law, 40 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J. 405 (2019).

Kramer, Scott P., Why Is the Company Asking about My Fear of Spiders? A New Look at Evaluating whether an Employer-Provided Personality Test Constitutes a Medical Examination under the ADA, 2007 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1279 (2007).

Menjoge, Sujata S., Testing the Limits of Anti-Discrimination Law: How Employers’ Use of Pre-Employment Psychological and Personality Tests Can Circumvent Title VII and the ADA, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 326 (2003).