從美國身心障礙者法看我國就業平等相關法制：以公務員體檢為例

Review of Employment Equality Law from The Americans with Disabilities Act: Medical Examinations Requirement For Civil Servant

賴郁樺(Yu-Hua Lai)

指導教授 ： 黃昭元

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00480

摘要

我國現行公務員考試，常見考試類科要求應考者，必須通過體格檢查方能繼續應試，若無法通過體格檢查就無法繼續應試，體格檢查項目有設立資格標準或體能測試，其中多數資格標準均係直接針對身心障礙者，是否已構成對身心障礙者之就業歧視？此外表面中立之體能測試，卻導致排除肢體障礙者之效果，此時國家是否有差別影響（disparate impact）歧視責任？最後，視障者若要求考試機關提供點字設備，或延長考試時間等調整措施（Accommodation）以協助其應考，倘若考試機關無故拒絕其請求，考試機關之行為是否已構成就業歧視訴訟？

遺憾地，我國現行反就業歧視法制之就業歧視內涵，仍僅限於傳統的差別對待歧視類型，我國法是否禁止差別影響歧視及雇主（或考試機關）無故拒絕提供合理調整措施的情形，均尚有爭論。是以，本文決定借鏡美國發展完備之反就業歧視法制，尤其是美國身心障礙者法(The Americans with Disabilities Act)規定之差別影響歧視責任及拒絕提供合理調整措施歧視責任法，供我國法制借鏡。

本文研究結論主張，倘若設立體格檢查規定之考試類科，目的係基於提供合理調整措施之成本過鉅、應試者之身心損害致其欠缺工作能力或對他人產生安全威脅、基於工作相關或業務需求，進而以身心障礙者為分類標準，此時體格檢查規定雖有排除身心障礙者或特定群體者之效果，仍不違憲。

關鍵字

平等權 ； 體格檢查 ； 差別影響歧視 ； 差別對待歧視 ； 身心障礙就業歧視 ； 美國身心障礙者法 ； 合理調整措施 ； 過度妨礙 ； 工作相關及業務需要

並列摘要

Nowadays, the Examination Yuan still requires applicants to pass medical examinations prior to taking examinations to become public servants. If candidates fail to meet the compulsory medical examination requirements, they will be disqualified. We believe this examination will deprive the physically-challenged of their right to work in the government sector because it causes discrimination and might infringe employment equality.

Actually, medical examination is a policy that is ostensibly neutral, but in fact has a negative impact on the minorities, which raise the concern of “Disparate Impact Liability”. Besides, if the Visually-impaired request that the Examination Yuan provide them with additional accommodation, such as Braille Display, an extension on the time limit and the Examination Yuan refuses or fails to do so, would it be considered employment discrimination and thus the visually-impaired in question could file a lawsuit on that?

Unfortunately, the anti-employment discrimination statute in Taiwan could not give answers to the questions above yet. Owing to the fact that America has the most comprehensive anti-discrimination legal system and regulations to prevent employment discrimination, this article will probe the American experience and strongly suggests that we place emphasis on why one fails to provide reasonable accommodation, which causes employment discrimination.
Finally, this thesis also will discuss the possibility of applying them to our legal system.

In conclusion, not all the public servant examinations rules are violating equality right protection. To be more specific, the following cases would be excluded because they do not contradict with the Constitution: when providing accommodations for the physically-challenged costs more than one can afford; when providing accommodations for the physically-challenged may pose direct threats to others; when the physically-challenged are disqualified for the positions, or it is related to job qualification based on business necessity and therefore one can refuse to do so.

並列關鍵字

Equality Right ； Medical Examinations ； Disparate Impact Discrimination ； Disparate Treatment Discrimination ； Employment Discrimination Based on Disability ； The Americans with Disabilities Act ； Reasonable Accommodation Law ； Undue Hardship ； Job-Relatedness and Business Necessity.

參考文獻

張郁昇（2010）。《美國就業年齡歧視法之研究－兼論對我國法制之啟示》，國立

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》，國立台

《身心障礙研究季刊》，第12卷1期，頁38-53。

洪惠芬（2012）。〈「分配正義」還是「形式正義」？身心障礙作為福利身分與歧

黃士珊、陳怡慧(2012)。〈具有口語能力之聽覺障礙者工作適應境〉，《國立台南