大法官解釋 釋字第807號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期：2021/08/20 |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 勞動基準法第49條第1項規定，限制女性勞工於夜間工作，是否違反憲法第7條保障性別平等之意旨？ |
| [6] See Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 211 (1976) (plurality opinion) (‘Such classifications, however, have frequently been revealed on analysis to rest only upon “old notions” and “'archaic and overbroad” generalizations, and so have been found to offend the prohibitions against denial of equal protection of the law’); J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127, 130-31 (1994) (“Today we reaffirm what, by now, should be axiomatic: Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors violates the Equal Protection Clause, particularly where, as here, the discrimination serves to ratify and perpetuate invidious, archaic, and overbroad stereotypes about the relative abilities of men and women”). [7] See Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 725 (1982) (“[I]f the statutory objective is to exclude or 'protect' members of one gender because they are presumed to suffer from an inherent handicap or to be innately inferior, the objective itself is illegitimate”). [8] See Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973) (‘Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of “romantic paternalism” which, in practical effect, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage’). [9] 釋字第728號解釋既未說明其對性別平等案件之審查標準，在結論上也實質棄守對系統性差別影響（disparate impact）之性別歧視的審查。釋字第791號解釋理由書第42、43段雖有提及性別失衡的現象，但並未正面處理性別平等的問題，因此也沒有先就性別平等之審查標準表示立場。 |
| < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > |
填單諮詢
最新活動