英国反就业性别歧视法律制度研究

英国普通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,英国对于禁止就业性别歧视制定了大量的法律,对于同工同酬、性骚扰、母性保护等进行了详尽和周密的规定.此外,这些法律还规定了直接歧视、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,在应对就业歧视问题上扮演了重要角色.     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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.     

我国就业中年龄歧视的实证研究——以1995～2005年上海和成都两市30万份招聘广告为例

就业中的年龄不属被劳动法禁止的歧视种类。据对1995年我国《劳动法》施行到2005年这11年期间30万份报刊广告招聘条件的统计,用人单位录用劳动者主要集中在35岁以下,40岁以上普遍受到用人单位的差别排斥。年龄歧视成为劳动法规定的平等就业与现实差距最大的一个现象。用人单位对劳动者实行不合理的年龄差别,严重限制、剥夺并影响到劳动者平等就业权利的实现。消除这个普遍的、严重的歧视种类:一方面可以在制定劳动就业促进法中增加禁止年龄歧视的种类,另一方面可以考虑在制定反歧视法中明确把年龄歧视作为法律禁止的歧视类型。     

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。     

城镇就业中的身长歧视研究

自然人的身长在法律上属于与他人利益和公共利益无关且不受任何人（包括国家在内）干预的私人生活领域。用人单位如在行使用工自主权时要求与劳动能力、专业技术和岗位职责无关的身长条件，在法律上构成“考虑不相关的因素”的行为，且限制、剥夺、侵犯了劳动者平等就业权利。禁止身长歧视是反歧视立法由传统的禁止针对人的固有特征的歧视，扩展到针对基于社会偏见的歧视，再到保护体现人格尊严的身长、长相歧视的最新发展的需要。     

反就业歧视法专家稿提交全国人大

前不久，《反就业歧视法（专家建议稿）》提交至全国人大。据介绍，该建议稿有两大亮点：设立国家机会平等委员会、设置反隐性歧视的举证责任倒置。因为一部法律而设立一个专门的机构，在我国是从来没有过的事情。     

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。     

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.     

Equal employment opportunity for individuals with disabilities--EEOC. Final rule

On July 26, 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law. Section 106 of the ADA requires that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issue substantive regulations implementing title I (Employment) within one year of the date of enactment of the Act. Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission is publishing a new part 1630 to its regulations to implement title I and sections 3(2), 3(3), 501, 503, 506(e), 508, 510, and 511 of the ADA as those sections pertain to employment. New part 1630 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment.     

Lifelong learning and age discrimination in employment

Age discrimination in employment can be perfectly lawful in the United Kingdom. Older workers are discriminated against when they seek employment and whilst they are in employment, as well as being encouraged to leave the workforce. One of the purposes of a programme of lifelong learning is to aid the employability and career progression of individuals within the workforce. There is, however, little evidence to show that those who enter or return to higher education as mature students fare any better than other workers in avoiding discrimination based upon their chronological age. The Government introduced a voluntary code of practice on age diversity in employment and resisted legislation on the subject. There appears, however, to be a contradiction between this resistance and the Government's encouragement of the principle of lifelong learning.     

Settling for Less? Organizational Determinants of Discrimination‐Charge Outcomes

Although more than 60,000 workers formally charge their employers with unlawful sex or race employment discrimination annually, fewer than one in five charges results in outcomes favorable to the complainant. Building on sociolegal and organizational theory, this study examines how employing organizations avoid unfavorable discrimination-charge outcomes. Using EEO-1 establishment reports matched to discrimination charge data provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I assess the effect of employers' legal experience, resources, and indicators of legal compliance on the likelihood that complainants receive favorable charge outcomes, benefits, monetary settlements, and policy change mandates. In general, I find that legal experience, establishment size, and indicators of legal compliance insulate employers from unfavorable charge outcomes. However, in situations where employers are willing to settle claims, legally experienced establishments are more likely to pay monetary damages and receive mandates to change their workplace policies.     

Employment discrimination: procedures for handling complaints--Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Proposed rule

This proposed rule sets forth procedures for the handling of complaints of employment discrimination which are filed with Federal fund granting agencies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and other provisions of Federal law which prohibit discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex or national origin in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The regulations allow the fund granting agency to refer complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For complaints covered both by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or other statutes within EEOC's jurisdiction and by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or Title IX, the regulations contemplate that most complaints of individual acts of discrimination will be referred to EEOC for investigation and conciliation, while most complaints of systemic discrimination will be retained by the fund granting agency. Employment discrimination complaints which are not covered by Title VI or Title IX will be transferred to EEOC. This proposed rule is not a "major rule" as defined by Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291.     

Employee Insolvency Priorities and Employment Protection in France,Germany, and the United Kingdom

When an employer becomes insolvent, employees’ claims for unpaid wages and contributions may be protected through statutory priorities, social security schemes, or a combination of both. This article compares the interplay of employee statutory priorities, if they exist, and social security schemes in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. While France protects employees through both a statutory priority and a social security scheme, Germany and the United Kingdom have progressively reduced employment protection over the last forty years. Theories of varieties of capitalism and of legal origins cannot fully describe and explain the development of employment protection strategies in these countries. The evolution of the German and British regimes, in particular, are better explained as a sign of profound cultural shifts regarding the position of labour within firms and vis‐à‐vis other stakeholders. Finally, I also show that a cumulative application of employee priorities and insurance schemes is not necessarily redundant.     

我国现阶段劳务派遣实证研究——以劳资关系中的社会保险为视角

我国劳务派遣就业中的劳资关系不和谐的主要原因不仅在于劳动力供大于求,更在于现有法律制度对劳资关系制衡机制规制不力。完善劳务派遣就业平等法律保障机制,需设立平等就业保护委员会,完善有关社会保险的法律,建立多元化的就业平等纠纷解决机制,培育就业平等的社会理念并树立起积极的维权意识等。     

Expert testimony on decision processes in employment cases

The 1991 Civil Rights Act and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have modified standards applicable to psychometric or statistical proof of discrimination in employment cases. Changes in the legal standards have increased the role for psychological experts to prove or rebut allegations of disparate impact of hiring or promotional criteria, whether those criteria caused the observed disparities in the workforce, and whether the legitimate needs of the employer were substantially served by the employer's selection criteria. Three different methods or approaches to meet the legal standards are discussed: (a) reliance on traditional psychometric validity analyses; (b) regression analysis or the policy-capturing method; and (c) the survey data approach. These techniques are illustrated by reference to three cases in which experts successfully presented this evidence. While the application of the 1991 Civil Rights Act remains somewhat unclear, these approaches may prove useful in future employment discrimination cases.The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any other government agency.     

禁止就业歧视的"人本"之维

禁止就业歧视的"人本"价值在于:实现人的生存权和发展权,维护人格尊严、实现正义,维护人类共同利益、实现社会和谐。我国禁止就业歧视的法律较好地体现了"人本"精神,但也有一些不足,应当加以完善。