论我国反就业歧视法律制度的完善

当前,我国就业平等的观念相当匮乏,现实生活中的就业歧视现象比比皆是：性别歧视、户籍歧视、健康歧视、身高歧视、相貌歧视……民众的生存之道是谋生,而谋生的手段就是就业。关注就业就是关注民生,禁止就业歧视就是维护民众的生存之道。我国建立和完善反就业歧视法律制度,符合我国人民大众的根本利益,符合世界有关反就业歧视的趋势。本文通过比较和借鉴荷兰、加拿大、日本等国家及我国香港地区反就业歧视的经验,分析我国反就业歧视现行立法和实施过程中存在的问题,就我国反就业歧视法律制度的完善提出相应的对策和建议。     

我国制定《反就业歧视法》的若干问题研究

面临日益严重的就业歧视问题,无论是我国的决策层还是学界,其主流观点几乎都认可这一事实：我国已经具备制定一部统一的《反就业歧视法》的最佳时机。《反就业歧视法》（专家建议稿）的出台是我国反就业歧视事业的一项重要阶段性成果,但同时也把反就业歧视领域中许多深层次问题推到了我们面前：《反就业歧视法》的立法目的仅仅是保障平等就业权吗？《反就业歧视法》的适用范围是否包含事业单位劳动者和国家公务员？我国应采取一个什么样的就业歧视定义模式？我国应如何设立反就业歧视的专门机构？我国反就业歧视的司法救济机制应如何设计？我国应如何建构就业歧视的法律责任制度？上述问题已经成为我国《反就业歧视法》设计者们必须认真对待的新课题。     

我国反就业歧视法律规控研究

就业歧视现象在我国普遍存在,而反就业歧视法制相当落后。就业歧视的本质特征是没有正当理由的差别对待,法律禁止就业歧视的主要目的是保障平等就业权并实现社会正义。在市场化就业背景下,反就业歧视必须正确处理用工自主权与平等就业权这对“轴心”权利的相互关系。我国应当以正面赋予劳动者平等就业权作为反就业歧视的权利基础,以准确界定就业歧视作为反就业歧视的中心任务,从立法、执法和司法三个层面逐步建立健全我国反就业歧视的法律规控体系。     

反残疾人就业歧视的法律保障研究

残疾人就业是民生问题。我国残疾人在就业中经常遭到歧视,各类残疾人的就业率低,劳动保障程度差。已有的《残疾人保障法》中有保障残疾人平等就业权和反就业歧视的内容,但是没有具体完善的规定,缺乏可操作性和法律救济措施,导致形同虚设,故构建反残疾人就业歧视相关的法律框架是我国保障残疾人平等就业权益的迫切需要。本文关注我国反残疾人就业歧视问题,在分析国际条约要求与借鉴发达国家反残疾人就业歧视法律的基础上,提出我国反残疾人就业歧视法律框架的基本问题,以期健全完善我国的反残疾人就业歧视法律框架,提高残疾人的社会融合度。     

我国反就业歧视法制建设初探

就业歧视是对公民平等就业权的严重侵害.就业歧视现象在我国的广泛存在已经成为不争的事实,但反就业歧视目前在我国尚欠缺完善的立法规制.本文指出明确就业歧视的法律界定,立足立法现状,完善我国反就业歧视法律制度是禁止就业歧视的关键所在.     

劳动权的平等保护及禁止就业歧视的法律思考

目前我国社会就业歧视现象愈演愈烈,劳动权作为公民的基本权利之一,其内在包含的就业平等权要求禁止就业歧视,因此禁止就业歧视是劳动权的题中之义。本文将以劳动权的平等保护为出发点,界定就业歧视的概念和主要表现形式,论述禁止就业歧视的必要性。我国禁止就业歧视的相关立法存在不足,应从立法、执法、司法三方面完善禁止就业歧视、维护劳动者的就业平等权的法律保障。     

论就业歧视的界定——欧盟“正当理由”理论对我国的启示

就业歧视现象在我国普遍存在,而相关立法相当落后,学界对就业歧视界定规则的研究也不深入。歧视是对正义原则的违背,其实质是一种不正当的区别对待。欧盟将歧视分为直接歧视和间接歧视,“正当理由”在歧视认定中发挥着重要作用。我国应借鉴外国相关立法和司法经验,制定适合我国现状的就业歧视界定规则,可根据先赋因素和自获因素两种情形区分就业中的区别对待现象,继而分别规定构成歧视的不同标准。     

论和谐社会下我国制定反就业歧视法的必要性

随着我国市场经济的深入发展,就业歧视问题日益突出,就业歧视现象五花八门。究其原因不外乎两点,用人单位滥用用人自主权和现行法律对反就业歧视法律规制的匮乏。在倡导以人为本,构建社会主义和谐社会的今天,制定一部专门规制就业歧视问题的法律尤为必要,以此来结束我国反就业歧视条文零散的局面,给被歧视者寻求法律救助指明方向。     

英国反就业歧视法与我国立法之完善

当前我国存在许多就业歧视现象,应通过立法禁止就业歧视并为受害人提供救济。英国建立了较为完善的反就业歧视制度。我国应借鉴英国立法,在《劳动法》和《就业促进法》之外,制定单独的《反就业歧视法》,规定禁止歧视的事由、保护范围、各种歧视的方式和判断标准、被告的抗辩事由、举证责任的分配和受害人的救济等内容,以保护劳动者的平等就业权和公民的平等权。     

平等就业权初论

就业歧视在我国现实生活中日益盛行,形式多样。就业歧视现象侵犯了劳动者的平等就业权,也由此造成了严重的社会危害。我国的就业立法和就业理论研究的滞后与不足,凸现平等就业权理论研究的必要性。如何在立法上明确就业歧视的内涵、判断标准以及法律救济,是确立劳动者平等就业权、反对就业歧视的关键。     

平等是一门科学——就业歧视法律控制的比较研究

世界上有代表性的几个国家反就业歧视的理论和经验,显示了不同国家在就业平等领域的宪法、立法、行政和司法等诸多方面的努力,其经验和教训足以为解决中国目前普遍存在的形形色色的就业歧视提供有益的借鉴和启示。本文表明,平等不仅是一种崇高的理念,更是一门实实在在的学问。运用在就业领域,各国宪法和立法上的平等原则纠正了职场上五花八门、许许多多的不合理和不公正的歧视。事实上,各国法院所发展出来的鉴别歧视的方法是大同小异的。它们共同构成了一套探测和扫除就业歧视的工具库,帮助我们远离愚昧和偏见,造就一个更为理性、公平和高效的社会。     

论平等就业权的界定

平等就业权在西方的实践路线主要是禁止就业歧视和推行平等就业政策,受各国不同文化和"意思场域"的影响,平等就业权很难在西方语境中探究其直接而完整的概念支撑体系。在我国,当平等就业权研究还未达成共识的时候,创设制度层面的反就业歧视法制,无疑是非常困难的;保护平等就业权一般被简单地解读为禁止就业歧视。由于平等就业权具有保障生存权的积极功能和价值承载,回归其本来的面目,具有正本清源的作用;平等就业权的界定是重构其理论体系的基本前提。平等就业权准确界定的关键,是依法规制平等就业权与用工自主权之间的界限。     

反就业歧视的法律思考

作为国际社会的重要成员,我国批准、加入了一系列禁止歧视的国际公约,但由于种种原因,就业歧视已成为我国当前一个突出的社会问题。解决这一问题,除了传统观念的更新、相关制度的变革外,主要还得从法律制度上着手,借鉴国际反歧视立法之成功经验,构建适合中国国情的反就业歧视法律制度。     

CURRENT TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHINESE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

The Law on the Protection of Disabled Persons is the first social security legislation in China, with more than 50 laws directly related to the legal protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and career development for people with disabilities. In terms of employment protections for people with disabilities, it is important to focus on effective legal implementation, utilizing legal rulings to limit employment discrimination against people with disabilities. Educational protections are an important precondition for enabling people with disabilities to live with dignity; it should be guaranteed that people with disabilities are provided “reasonable accommodation” in educational conditions. A barrier-free environment is a necessary condition for social integration of people with disabilities. At the same time, it also benefits other members of the society such as the elderly. Through rehabilitation and exercise, most people with disabilities can return to the society to a significant degree. China should gradually expand the legislative scope of rehabilitation service fee reductions and legal categories of auxiliary appliances, issuing guiding documents that provide specifications for the relevant “dormant” legal provisions.     

英国反就业歧视制度及实践研究

英国习惯法并不禁止歧视行为,但随着英国加入各种国际组织及国内平权运动的高涨,在20世纪70年代后,英国对于禁止性别、残疾、年龄等制定了大量的法律。当前英国反就业歧视的法律渊源主要包括:欧盟立法和专门性法律。这些法律中就有关就业歧视的违法行为进行了详尽和周密的规定,包括直接歧视、间接歧视、骚扰和受害等四种歧视形态,禁止在雇佣关系中各个阶段的任何歧视。为了有效地防止就业歧视,英国依据《平等法》成立了人权与平等机会委员会。平等机会委员会在应对英国社会中相对突出的就业歧视问题扮演了重要角色。     

反就业歧视法律问题之比较研究

文章分析了就业歧视的概念、表现形式和危害,介绍了国际上关于就业歧视产生根源的不同理论解说,评析了有关国际条约及美国、英国、加拿大和我国关于反歧视的立法规定,并就完善我国反就业歧视的法律制度提出了具体建议:(1)完善相关立法;(2)扩大法律援助的范围;(3)加强司法介入;(4)正确界定政府角色,加强劳动执法监督检查力度。     

FAMILY CARE COMMITMENT DISCRIMINATION: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY

This Note discusses the pervasive problem of employment discrimination based on family responsibilities, or family care commitment discrimination. Employees with family care commitments often find themselves being pulled in opposing directions—between work and family. When an employee is forced to choose work, for financial reasons, over family, his or her family ends up suffering. The current state and federal statutes aimed at employment discrimination are insufficient to deal with family care commitment discrimination. This Note proposes a change to the current legislation and explains how this change will protect employees and families, while causing employers to internalize externalities by adopting more family‐friendly policies.     

What Happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, Employment Discrimination, and the 80% Rule

Tests of statistical significance have increasingly been used in employment discrimination cases since the Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood. In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "in a proper case" statistical evidence can suffice for a prima facie showing of employment discrimination. The Court also discussed the use of a binomial significance test to assess whether the difference between the proportion of black teachers employed by the Hazelwood School District and the proportion of black teachers in the relevant labor market was substantial enough to indicate discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has proposed a somewhat stricter standard for evaluating how substantial a difference must be to constitute evidence of discrimination. Under the so-called 80% rule promulgated by the EEOC, the difference must not only be statistically significant, but the hire rate for the allegedly discriminated group must also be less than 80% of the rate for the favored group. This article argues that a binomial statistical significance test standing alone is unsatisfactory for evaluating allegations of discrimination because many of the assumptions on which such tests are based are inapplicable to employment settings; the 80% rule is a more appropriate standard for evaluating whether a difference in hire rates should be treated as a prima facie showing of discrimination.