台灣職場「以貌取人」的不平等──就業「外貌」歧視的法律史考察(1945-2016)

Inequality of “Judging People by Their Appearances” in Taiwan: A legal-historical study of discrimination based on appearances in employment (1945-2016)

李仲昀(Chung-Yun Lee)

指導教授 ： 陳昭如

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700004

摘要

「以貌取人」是勞動場域中常見的現象，例如求職階段在招募錄取上的外貌條件限制，以及特定的職場外貌呈現規範或要求等等。從近年來的相關報導可知，人們經常透過就業服務法等反就業歧視規範來挑戰職場「以貌取人」。然而，翻開過去的報紙，類似的職場「以貌取人」現象也存在於過去台灣的勞動場域當中，卻很少看到人們使用「歧視」或「不平等」的語言，主張職場「以貌取人」違反平等保障的規範。這是否意味著就服法等反就業歧視規範的制定「引領」了社會，使不平等的職場「以貌取人」現象有所改善或改變了人們對此的認知？本論文嘗試透過法律與社會研究中「共構論」觀點的研究取徑，歷史性地探討戰後以來，台灣勞動場域中「以貌取人」現象的不平等，以及其與相關反歧視法之間動態的演變過程。
首先，戰後以來，職場「以貌取人」的現象就常見於台灣的勞動場域當中。這些職場「以貌取人」對勞動者外貌條件的要求存在著大致共通的特定標準，且有集中在特定行業�職業的趨勢，例如服務業、從事服務性工作的職業或軍公教職等等。除此之外，這些職場「以貌取人」也存在性別化的現象，例如，高比例地發生在女性求職人或受雇人身上，以及「男褲女裙」等不僅「男女有別」且「性化」的職場外貌呈現規範等等。無論從形式平等及實質平等這兩種主要的平等理論來看，這些職場「以貌取人」都涉及到包括外貌、性別及障礙等類別在內的就業歧視問題。然而，1980年以前，當時的法律對這些不平等職場「以貌取人」而言都有其相當的侷限性，人們也普遍未能意識到職場「以貌取人」的不平等。換言之，1980年以前，不平等職場「以貌取人」可說是既「逍遙法外」又「逍遙人外」。
其次，1980年之後，1980年制定、1990年修正的殘障福利法、1984年制定的勞動基準法、1990年送審立法院的男女工作平等法草案、1992年制定的就服法等新興勞動反歧視立法被推動及制定，為「逍遙於人、法之外」的不平等職場「以貌取人」帶來新的規範可能性及使人們意識到這些問題的契機。在這些新興勞動反歧視立法推動的過程中，部分涉及就業性別及障礙歧視的不平等職場「以貌取人」被人們所注意到，人們透過「拒絕歧視」、「要求公平、平等」等權利的語言，表達其法律改革的訴求。然而，在就服法的推動及制定之前，這些勞動反歧視立法多僅能針對部分涉及性別及障礙歧視的不平等職場「以貌取人」，且在人們的行動及主張中，始終看不到關於「外貌歧視」的論述。直到就服法的立法，職場「以貌取人」的「外貌歧視」問題才被立法者們所提出並加以討論，就服法的反就業歧視規範也將職場「以貌取人」所可能涉及的各種包括外貌、性別、障礙等在內的就業歧視類別明文化為法律所禁止的就業歧視。對於這樣的立法結果，此時期人們在其他勞動反歧視立法過程中的行動及主張仍然扮演了重要的角色。
不過，即便就服法的制定對不平等職場「以貌取人」問題而言有其重要的意義，但規範的存在並不代表社會中不平等職場「以貌取人」的現象或人們對此的認知就會當然地有所改善或轉變。2000年以前，由於規範本身簡略的設計、官方在宣導、執行上的問題、民間培力的不足等等的因素，我們看不太到人們透過就服法等反就業歧視規範來挑戰職場「以貌取人」。直到2001年受到矚目的相關案件發生後，就服法等反就業歧視規範才逐漸被人們用以對抗職場「以貌取人」，職場「以貌取人」的不平等也逐漸為人所認知。然而，就服法等相關反歧視規範雖然可能做為人們對抗不平等職場「以貌取人」的「武器」或與雇主協商的「籌碼」，但這些規範本身可能也存在著「幫兇」的面向。除此之外，人們的主張與主管機關、就業歧視評議委員、法院等官方對就業歧視的認定也可能有所落差，而在人們的主張與行動，以及官方的回應兩相互動之下，就服法等反就業歧視規範對不平等職場「以貌取人」而言才被踐行出意義。
從相關案例的分析可知，官方多從形式平等的觀點來處理職場「以貌取人」的案件，並傾向認為就服法所禁止的外貌歧視必須限於「與生俱來」或「不可改變」的外貌條件，對職場「以貌取人」是否構成就業歧視的認定也傾向採取「單軸」的模式，僅就所涉及的其中一種歧視類別來認定。雖然對於官方的見解，人們依然會透過不同的行動繼續提出相關的主張，有時甚至能突破官方既有的見解，但整體而言，官方上述的歧視認定實務仍然可能使得某些不平等職場「以貌取人」逸脫於就服法等反就業歧視法的規範之外。
本文回顧了戰後以來台灣職場「以貌取人」現象的不平等，以及其與相關反歧視法之間的關係，發現不同時期兩者的樣貌實際上是法律與社會之間相互影響共構下的結果，人們的行動及主張在這個動態的演變過程中扮演了重要的角色。而關於目前就服法等反就業歧視規範對職場「以貌取人」問題在實務上面臨的狀況，期待未來透過批判性地反思「與生俱來不可改變」的既有見解，以及從實質平等及多元交織的觀點，檢討以形式平等及單軸檢驗模式為主的歧視認定方式和以行政罰為主的救濟機制設計，使相關反就業歧視規範更加發揮其所宣稱的追求就業平權、改善弱勢群體在勞動場域中的弱勢處境這樣的立法目的。

關鍵字

法律史 ； 法律動員 ； 平等權 ； 就業歧視 ； 就業服務法 ； 外貌歧視 ； 容貌歧視 ； 五官歧視 ； 性別歧視 ； 障礙歧視

並列摘要

It seems common for people to be judged by their appearances in employment. For example, one may be requested to fit in the standards set up by employers about appearances (include height, weight, looks, grooming, etc.) when finding the jobs or being at work. According to the reports about the cases of the applicants or employees being judged by their appearances in employment for the past few years, people often argued that the employers in the cases violated the right to equality and the anti-discrimination law such as Employment Service Act §5 I. By contrast, although there were a lot of similar cases occurred, people in the past seem not to hold the same argument about the violation of anti-discrimination law or the right to equality. Does it mean that the legislation of the anti-discrimination law “lead” the society? In this thesis, I historically research the cases in Taiwan from 1945 to the present about appearance-based discrimination in employment from the perspective of the constitutive approach developed from the study of law and society, and discuss the problem of inequality in the cases and the role of the anti-discrimination law.
First, it was common from 1945 for the applicants or employees to be requested to fit in the standards set up by employers about appearances which is similar when finding the jobs or being at work, especially in the employment or the workplace of military, civil servants, teaching staff or service industry. Moreover, the standards about appearances in the cases was not only overwhelmingly against female applicants or employees, but also different between male and female and sexualized. Although both from the perspective of formal equality approach and substantive equality approach, the employers in the cases of “judging people by appearances” in employment may cause discrimination of gender, disability and appearance, the existing anti-discrimination law before 1980 was rarely helpful. Furthermore, it appears that people didn’t notice the inequality in the cases at the time.
Second, after 1980, with the legislation and promotion of new anti-discrimination law such as Disabilities Welfare Act (legislated in 1980 and amended in 1990), Labor Standards Act (legislated in 1984), the draft of Equality Between Men and Women in Employment Act (submitted to the Legislative Yuan in 1990), and Employment Service Act (legislated in 1992), the situation became different. People have not only noticed the discrimination in the cases about “judging people by appearances” in employment, but also claimed the protection of equality through legal mobilization. However, the new anti-discrimination law were still incomplete for the cases, and there was not any discussion about appearance discrimination until the legislation of Employment Service Act §5, which forbids several kinds of discrimination in Employment like gender, disability, appearance, etc.
Third, although the legislation of Employment Service Act §5 could be of great significances for appearance-based discrimination, people seldom challenged the appearance-based discrimination according to Employment Service Act until the notable case occurred in 2001, which might be attributable to many reasons such as the simple design of the article, ineffective government propaganda and insufficient civil advocacy. After 2001, people used Employment Service Act and other anti-discrimination law as a weapon to fight the decision maked by employers or as a chip to negotiate with employers in more and more cases about appearance-based discrimination. However, the anti-discrimination law itself may also cause the inequality. Besides, there may be a gap between the claims from applicants or employees and the decision of competent authorities or courts. The real meaning of the anti-discrimination law has been practiced in the process of the legal mobilization and the interation between ordinary people and the authorities.
According to the analysis of the decisions in the cases about appearance-based discrimination in employment, first, the perspective of formal equality approach was predominantly adopted by the authorities and the courts. Second, it seems that the “appearance” protected in Employment Service Act §5 refers only to the appearance which is innate or immutable. Third, in the cases related to more than a kind of discrimination, the authorities and the courts might be inclined to recognize only one kind of discrimination. All of these may let lots of appearance-based discrimination in employment can’t be dealt by the anti-discrimination law.
In conclusion, the legal mobilization about appearance-based discrimination in employment done by ordinary people actually play the important role in the shaping of the related anti-discrimination law, which also play the important role in the shaping of society like how people think of judging applicants or employees by their appearances at the same time. Besides, in order to reach the purpose of the anti-discrimination law to ensure against inequality in employment, the opinions and decisions of the authorities and the courts in the cases about appearance-based discrimination should be reviewed through the perspective of substantive equality approach and intersectionality.

並列關鍵字

Legal History ； Legal Mobilization ； Equality ； Discrimination In Employment ； Employment Service Act ； Appearance-Based Discrimination ； Gender Discrimination ； Disability Discrimination

參考文獻

吳怡靜（2011）。〈台灣第一代Showgirls：戰後工商展覽會中的「商展小姐」，1950s-1960s〉，《文化研究月報》，117期，頁44-75。

周兆昱、鄭津津（2014）。〈就業歧視新興爭議問題之研究〉，《法令月刊》，65卷6期，頁14-29。

俞浩偉（2009）。《從憲法平等權探討我國身心障礙者就業保障之問題》，臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），台北。

張文貞（2012）。〈演進中的法：一般性意見作為國際人權公約的權威解釋〉，《臺灣人權學刊》，1卷2期，頁25-43。

張如慧（2006）。〈學校服裝儀容規定中之性別差異─潛在課程的觀點〉，《課程與教學季刊》，9卷4期，頁35-50。