English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25826683      Online Users : 241
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34423

    Title: 美國禁止身心障礙就業歧視制度之研究-兼論對我國制度建構之啟示
    Authors: 林政緯
    Lin, Cheng-Wei
    Contributors: 焦興鎧
    Chiao, Cing-Kai
    Lin, Cheng-Wei
    Keywords: 就業歧視
    employment discrimination
    disability discrimination
    Civil Right Act of 1964
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    Americans with Disabilities of 1990
    reasonable accommodation
    undue hardship
    Date: 2003
    Issue Date: 2009-09-18 10:14:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來在我國,有關就業歧視所引起的爭議,已經因各弱勢團體權利意識之覺醒,而有逐漸受到社會的重視,除了一般較為熟知之性別歧視外,尚有其他有關宗教信仰、族群、黨派、身心障礙、語言、年齡及容貌等因素所造成的工作機會或待遇的不平等之現象,也曾引起廣泛的討論,究竟這些現象在我國之嚴重程度如何?我國現行法規制度是否能夠有效因應?有沒必要參酌其他先進國家法制,作禁止歧視之統一性立法?都是值得進一步探討的課題。

    因此,本論文針對禁止身心障礙就業歧視制度發展最完備的美國作為探討的對象,首先討論美國禁止身心障礙就業歧視制度之早期發展沿革,包括了禁止身心障礙之概念與理論之簡介以及一九六四年所通過之民權法第七章(Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964)、一九七三年通過之復健法(Rehabilitation Act of 1973)之重要規定及對於禁止身心障礙就業歧視問題之影響。其次,則針對一九九0年所通過之美國身心障礙人士法(Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)作討論。而美國身心障礙人士法乃是禁止身心障礙就業歧視制度之核心規範,因此,本文除了討論該法之立法背景外,同時更針對該法之重要條款規定以及平等就業機會委員會(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: EEOC)對於該法所頒佈之相關指導原則作一個綜合之分析討論。進而,更針對該法在美國所引發之重大爭議中,選取美國最高法院在最近所作出之最具代表性之六個判決,也對判決作一個綜合之評析,以明瞭其利弊得失之所在及我國可資借鏡參考之處。

    Disputes resulted from the employment discrimination have been gradually noticed by Taiwan society due to the awakening consciousness of each disadvantaged minority in these years. In addition to the commonly known of sexual discrimination, other factors of unequal employment and treatment are also widely discussed, such as religion, race, party, disability, language, age and appearance. However, how serious are these phenomena in our country after all? Do existing laws and regulations could solve them effectively? Is it necessary to refer to other modern countries’ legal systems to legislate against discrimination? All of the above are worthy of further discussion.

    Therefore, America, the country with the most complete legislation system to protect a disability from employment discrimination, is the object for discussion in this article. First to discuss is its early development history, including the introduction of concept and theory, the important regulations of Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and their influences. Second to discuss is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which is the core regulation of the legislation system to protect a disability from the employment discrimination; Therefore, in addition to discussing its legislation background, this article also discusses comprehensively of its important regulations and the regulations to implement the equal employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act on it at the same time. Then selects 6 most representative decrees made by Supreme Court of the United State with regard to the important disputes, and also analyze those decrees comprehensively to realize their advantages and disadvantages to find some experiences that could learned in Taiwan.

    Moreover, is to discuss that the situation and the difficulty in the establishment of the legislation system to protect a disability from employment discrimination, which mainly focus on the analysis of the employment difficulties and discrimination faced by the people with physical and mental disabilities, relevant regulations and legislation system against employment discrimination, operation of committee on employment discrimination, and disputes arose from employment discrimination. Finally, it is expected to establish a correct direction for the establishment of legislation system to protect a disability from employment discrimination and to seek out specific suggestions relevant to problems we have in the management of the employment discrimination faced by the people with physical and mental disabilities through America’s experiences.
    Reference: 中文部分
    (1)內政部,《台灣地區身心障礙者生活狀況調查報告》,臺北市:內政部,民國八十二年 (1993)。
    (2)內政部統計處,《中華民國八十三年台閩地區殘障者生活狀況調查報告》,臺北市:內政部,民國八十三年 (1994)。
    (3)內政部統計處,《中華民國八十九年台閩地區殘障者生活狀況調查報告》,臺北市:內政部,民國八十九年 (2000)。
    (4)王國羽,溫建仁,《殘障福利供給面之分析期末報告》,台北市:中華民國殘障聯盟,內政部委託,民國八十四年 (1995)。
    (5) 王麗容,《婦女與社會政策》,台北市:巨流圖書公司,民國八十四年 (1995)。
    (6)朱浤源主編,《撰寫博碩士論文實戰手冊》,台北市:正中書局,民國八十九年 (2000)。
    (7)余漢儀,《台灣地區兩性就業狀況之研究》,台北市:行政院勞工委員會,民國八十年 (1991)。
    (8) 吳忠吉,《勞動經濟學》,台北縣蘆洲市:國立空中大學,民國九十二年 (2003)。
    (9)崔偉、張志強譯,Hoffman, Saul D.著,《勞動市場經濟學》,台北市:五南出版社,民國八十年 (1991)。
    (10)張維裕,《就業上性別歧視之研究:從美國經驗談我國就業上的性別歧視問題》,政治大學勞工研究所碩士論文,民國八十七年 (1998)。
    (11)陳新民,《憲法學導論》,台北市:三民書局,民國八十八年 (1999)。
    (12)陳榮華,《台灣地區殘障福利措施之研究》,台北市:行政院研究發展考核委員會編印,民國七十二年 (1983)。
    (13)單麗珠,《勞動市場兩性平等雇用之研究》,文化大學勞工研究所碩士論文,民國八十年 (1991)。
    (14)彭懷恩譯,Klein, Hugh著,《社會學的基石》,台北市:風雲論壇出版社,民國八十二年 (1993)。
    (15)焦興鎧與鄭津津,《我國就業歧視評議運作機能與制度建立研究計畫報告》,台北市:行政院勞工委員會,民國八十九年 (2000)。
    (16)黃程貫,《勞動法》,台北縣蘆洲市:國立空中大學,民國八十五年 (1996)。
    (17)黃越欽,《勞動法新論》台北市:翰蘆圖書總經銷,民國九十一年 (2002)。
    (18)盧中玲,《反就業歧視法理之研究》,中國文化大學勞工研究所碩士論文,民國八十五年 (1996)。
    一、 法院判決部分:
    (1) Albertson`s, Inc. v. Hallie Kirkingburg. 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
    (2) Barnett v. USAirways, Inc. 196 F.3d 978 (9 th Cir. 1998).
    (3) Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, 480 U.S.273 (1987).
    (4) Chevron USA, Inc v. Mario Echazabal, Cite as 122 S.Ct. 2045 (2002).
    (5) Echazabal V. Chevron USA, Inc, 226 F.3d. 1063 (9 th Cir 2000).
    (6) Ella Williams v. Toyota Motor. 224 F.3d 840 (6 th Cri. 2000).
    (7) Kirkingburg v. Albertson`s, Inc.,143 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir 1998).
    (8) Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. 141 F.3d 1185 (C.A.10 1998)..
    (9) Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. 527 U.S. 516 (1999).
    (10) Pushkin v. Regent of U of Colo,658 F2d 1372, 1386-87 (10 th Cir 1981).
    (11) Pushkin v. Regent of U of Colo,658 F2d 1372, 1386-87 (10 th Cir 1981).
    (12) Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. 130 F.3d 893 (10 th Cir. 1997).
    (13) Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
    (14) Toyota Motor v. Williams, 122 S. Ct. 681 (2002).
    (15) USAirways, Inc. v. Barnett , 122 S. Ct. 1516 (2002).
    二、 書籍期刊部分:
    (1) Ashenfelter , Orley and Rees, Albert , Discrimination in Labor Markets, Princeton, N.J : Princeton University Press (1973).
    (2) Bonnie Poiras Tucker, “The Supreme Court’s Definition of Disability Under The ADA: A Return To The Dark Ages,” 52 Ala. L. Rev. , 321-334 (2001).
    (3) Burgdorf Jr., Robert L., “The Americans with Disabilities Act: Analysis And Implications of A Second – Generation Civil Right Statute,” 26 Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. , 413-552 (1991).
    (4) Byars, Lloyd L. and Rue, Leslie W., Human Resource Management. 4 th ed. (1994).
    (5) Dessler, Gary, Human Resource Management. New York: Oxford Press (1990).
    (6) Feldblum,Chai R., “ The Americans with Disabilities Act Definition of Disability,” 7 Labor Lawyer 11, 11-26 (1991).
    (7) Frierson, James G., “An Analysis of ADA Provisions on Denying Employment Because of a Risk of Future Injury,”17 Employee Relations L. J. 4,603-622 (1992).
    (8)Gardner, Russell H. and Campanella, Carolyn J., “The Undue Hardship Defense to the Reasonable Accommodation Requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,”7 Labor Lawyer 27, 37-51 (1991).
    (9)Gooding, Caroline ,Disabiling Laws, Enabling Act : Disability Rights in Britain and America, London :Pluto Press (1994).
    (10)Gostin, Lawrence O. and Beyer, Herry A., Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act: Rights and Responsibilities of all Americans., Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes (1993).
    (11)Katzman, Robert A., Institutional Disability : The Sage of Transportation Policy for the Disabled, Washington , D.C.: the Brooking Institution (1986).
    (12)Kelly, Eileen P. and Aalberts, Robert J., “Americans With Disabilities Act: Undue Hardship for Private Sector Employers,” Labor Law Journal, 675-684 (1990).
    (13)Lee, Barbara A., “Reasonable Accommodation and the Unionized Employer: Reassignment of Workers with Disabilities,”2 Human Resource Management Reviews,183-193 (1992).
    (14)_____________, “The Implications of ADA Litigation for Employers: A Review of Federal Appellate Court Decisiond,” 40(1) Human Resource Management, 40-43 (2001).
    (15)_____________, “A Decade of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Judicial Outcomes and Unresolved Problems,” 42 Industrial Relations , 11-30 (2003).
    (16)Mayerson, Arlene, “The Americans with Disabilities Act – An Historic Overview,” 7 Labor Lawyer 11, 1-9 (1990).
    (17)Mook,Jonathan R., “Supreme Court Addresses Reasonable Accommodation, But Uncertainty Remains,” 28 Employee Relations Law Journal , 7-27 (2002).
    (18)_______________, “Toyota v. Williams: The Disability Analysis Continues,” 28 Employee Relations Law Journal , 25-46 (2002).
    (19)Percy, Stephen L., Disability, Civil Rights, and Public Policy : the Politics of Implementation, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press (1989).
    (20)Pfeiffer ,David "Overview of the Disability Movement :History , Legislative Record, and Political Implication," 21(4) Policy Studies Journal 724 -736 (1993).
    (21)Report of the House Committee on Education and Labor, HR Rep No 485, 101 st Cong, 2d Sess, Part Ⅱ (1990).
    (22)Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, HR Rep No485, 101 st Cong, 2d Sess, PartⅢ (1990).
    (23) Report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S Rep No 101-16, 101 st Cong, 1st Sess (1989).
    (24)Schmid,Gnther and Weitzel,Renate, Sex Discrimination And Equal Opportunity, New York : St. Martin`s Press (1984).
    (25)Shafritz, Jay M., The Facts on File Dictionary of Personnel Management and Labor Relations, 2rd ed, New York: Facts on File (1995) .
    (26)Shaller, Ellior H., “Reasonable Accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act – What Does It Means,”16 Employee Relations L. J. 4, 431-450 (1991).
    (27)Susser, Peter A., “The ADA: Dramatically Expanded Federal Rights for Disabled Americans,”16 Employee Relations L. J. 2, 157-176 (1990).
    (28)Thornburgh, Dick , “The Americans with Disabilities Act: What It Means to All Americans,”Labor Law Journal, 803-806 (1990).
    (29)Weirich,C. Geoffrey, “Reasonable Accommodation Under the Americans with Disabilities Act,”7 Labor Lawyer , 27-36 (1991).
    (30)Wit, Adam C., “Sutton and Murphy: What It Means To Be Disabled Under the ADA,” 25 Employee Relations Law Journal , 41-56 (1999).
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0087262010
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[勞工研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    26201001.pdf46KbAdobe PDF996View/Open
    26201002.pdf67KbAdobe PDF842View/Open
    26201003.pdf82KbAdobe PDF1084View/Open
    26201004.pdf94KbAdobe PDF948View/Open
    26201005.pdf222KbAdobe PDF1309View/Open
    26201006.pdf255KbAdobe PDF3305View/Open
    26201007.pdf352KbAdobe PDF2232View/Open
    26201008.pdf314KbAdobe PDF1230View/Open
    26201009.pdf624KbAdobe PDF3112View/Open
    26201010.pdf254KbAdobe PDF1375View/Open
    26201011.pdf99KbAdobe PDF970View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback