障礙者工作平等權的法律史探尋：反差異論與反從屬論間的思辨（1945-2014）

障礙者就業不平等是長久以來存在於社會結構、法律制度中的問題，本文希望透過平等理論的思考與臺灣戰後障礙者工作平權法律史的經驗資料分析，討論此問題，並將理論與相關經驗資料進行連結。在平等理論方面，本文區分「反差異論」與「反從屬論」兩種平等觀，分別討論其概念內涵、貢獻與理論限制。反差異論認為不應對人群進行分類、差別待遇，若欲進行差別待遇，須提出正當化事由。雖然反差異論的確也能處理一些不平等問題，但此平等觀對中性待遇下潛藏的不平等較不敏感，且可能錯殺積極矯正歧視措施。如「合理差別待遇」、「等者等之，不等者不等之」的審查標準即是此種平等觀的展現。反差異論已經備受批評，本文則試圖由反從屬論找尋另一種看待平等的方式。反從屬論希望看見階層社會中優勢群體與弱勢群體間存在的不平等關係，不平等是指基於群體身分（如：障礙、性別、族群）而處於次等的、從屬的地位。法律制度有可能維繫、深化既存的不平等關係，也可能緩解、改善群體不平等的現狀。為了使反從屬論更加具體化，本文參考Iris Young提出的五種壓迫面向（剝削、邊緣化、無權力、文化帝國主義、系統性的暴力）與障礙研究的理論洞見，作為法律史探尋時觀察障礙者壓迫態樣的對照。在法律史分析上，可以用解嚴與民主化作為歷史分期。在解嚴與民主化之前，既有研究已經指出此時期存在1957年臺灣省各縣市按摩業管理規則與1980年殘障福利法，但殘障福利法對障礙者就業幫助不大。本文則試圖強調障礙者在相關法律形構中扮演的角色。臺灣的障礙團體至少從1950年代開始已從事按摩業管理與殘障福利的立法倡議，1980年殘障福利法制定過程中，也有視障團體立法遊說加入視障按摩保留條款的身影。另方面，本文也嘗試說明在解嚴與民主化之前，仍有機會動員殘障福利法反歧視條款或憲法平等權條款主張就業歧視。只是本文目前並未發現當時障礙者有這樣的法律動員主張。解嚴與民主化之後，障礙者權利運動推動修法、障礙者就業歧視申訴量不高的情形，先行研究皆已說明。本文進一步針對就業服務法反歧視條款下的障礙者就業歧視案件進行分析，指出該條款確有助於處理某些不平等問題（如：簡章歧視、錄用後發現障礙者身分而立即解雇），然而，表面中立說詞下可能隱藏的歧視，以及未提供合理調適措施作為歧視，卻未被充分注意。另方面，身心障礙者權益保障法差異取徑（包括：視障者按摩保留制度、庇護工場、定額進用、產能核薪）與平等權的連結不夠清楚，本文嘗試使用反從屬論平等觀進行思考與連結，指出強制定額進用制度、庇護工場、視障者職業保障均有助改善遭就業市場排除的邊緣化壓迫。然而，邊緣化壓迫並未完全解決、定額進用後仍處於職場中的邊緣化位置、庇護工場容許低於基本工資的產能核薪是否有恰當的評估機制、視障按摩業的去專業化困境均是待留意的不平等問題。期望藉由平等理論與歷史經驗的交織，更清楚梳理障礙者就業不平等的問題，幫助我們思考可能的解決之道。

關鍵字

法律史；障礙研究；平等權；就業歧視；障礙者法律動員；就業服務法；身心障礙者權益保障法

並列摘要

Disability inequality in employment has been a problem existed in law and social structure for a long time. This thesis deals with this problem through discussion of equality theory, post-war Taiwan legal history of people with disabilities, and the relationship between theory and historical analysis. On the part of equality theory, this thesis distinguishes two kinds of perspectives-- anti-differentiation and anti-subordination. Anti-differentiation perspective urges us not to classify people or not to give people different treatment. If someone tries to give different treatment, that person should also give reasonable reason. On the other hand, anti-subordination perspective tries to see disadvantaged groups in hierarchical society. People should not be subordinated based on their group status, such as: disability, gender or race. Law may deteriorate, or perpetuate the disability inequality status quo, nevertheless law may have power to improve, or ameliorate inequality. In order to crystallize anti-subordination perspective, this thesis draws some ideas from disability study and “Five Faces of Oppression” (exploitation, marginalization, cultural imperialism, powerlessness, and violence) proposed by Iris Young as reference to observe oppression types received by people with disabilities in Taiwan legal history. On the part of historical analysis, previous works have indicated that there had been Regulations for Massage in Every City of Taiwan Province of 1957 and the Handicapped Welfare Act of 1980 in Martial-Law Period, and Handicapped Welfare Act did little to improve disability inequality in employment. This thesis emphasizes the role of people with disabilities in advocating legal reform in the period. Moreover, this thesis indicates people with disabilities had opportunity to claim employment discrimination by mobilizing clause of antidiscrimination in Handicapped Welfare Act or clause of equal right in Constitution even before the end of Martial-Law Period and democratization. Unfortunately, those kinds of cases have not been found. Previous works have demonstrated that disability rights movement flourish after the end of Martial-Law Period and democratization, but people with disabilities raise little cases to claim employment discrimination. This thesis tries to analyze this problem. Besides, through cases analysis, this thesis finds that the clause of antidiscrimination in Employment Service Law has improved some inequality situations. However, the Employment Discrimination Review Committee pays insufficient attention to reasonable accommodations and facially neutral claims. On the other hand, this thesis uses anti-subordination perspective to link equality and several differential-approach institutions in People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, including: “massage occupational reservation for blind people”, “sheltered workshops”, “quota”, “calculating wages according to productivity”. “Massage occupational reservation for blind people”, “sheltered workshops”, and “quota” can help to ameliorate marginalization oppression. However, there remain many inequality problems which should be aware of, including: 1. Marginalization oppression is not completely resolved. 2. People with disabilities hired through quota system still have been marginalized in workplace. 3. Is there any appropriate method to evaluate productivity of people with disabilities？ 4. Blind people massagists face oppression of de-professionalization. Through theoretical and historical analysis, we understand the problems of disability inequality in employment more precisely, and may develop resolutions to solve those problems.

並列關鍵字

legal history ； disability study ； equal right ； discrimination in employment ； people with disabilities’ legal mobilization ； Employment Service Act ； People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act