▋場次：CRPD 第二次國家報告國際審查會議：委員會與非政府組織會議（一）

▋時間：2022 年 8 月 1 日 11:00

▋地點：南港展覽館二館 7 樓 701 AB

▋發言：黃嵩立｜人權公約施行監督聯盟召集人、台灣國際醫學聯盟秘書長

▋聯合團體：台灣國際醫學聯盟、人權公約施行監督聯盟

第五條：平等與不歧視中的合理調整

在 2017 年的 CRPD 首次國家報告後，國際審查委員認為最重要的工作之一，是透過立法和其他措施，讓 CRPD 當中有關合理調整的規定得以實現。在初次審查的結論性意見第 23 段 b) 國際審查委員會建議國家依 CRPD 第 2 條規定，將合理調整原則納入各項國家法規，並確保法律規定拒絕合理調整即構成歧視，且公私部門均一致適用。同時，在結論性意見第 82 段，國際審查委員會要求國家在 12 個月內，依 CRPD 第 35(2) 條規定，公布為執行國際審查委員會在第 23(b) 及 80(c) 項提出的建議，所採取的措施。

我們無從得知政府在過去五年中就合理調整做過何種努力，直到一個月前，行政院宣佈修訂《身心障礙者權益保障法》的修法。在這五年中，衛生福利部並未致力於推廣合理調整的概念和適用。這是對職責的忽視，因為根據《身心障礙者權利公約施行法》第 10 條，《公約》的規定可以在修訂國內立法之前優先適用。在這期間，絕對有許多基於身心障礙的歧視案件。在這些案件的訴訟中，往往是障礙者及其律師必須向法院證明，要求合理調整是一項合法權利。

台灣的法官往往沒有認識到提供合理調整屬於一種消除歧視的積極責任。法官們誤認說這是積極平權措施/優惠性差別待遇的一種形式、誤以為職務再設計等於合理調整、被「合理對待」和「合理調整」兩種中文翻譯所誤導，或者，認為 (109 年度訴字第 845 號判決) 「目前不論就業服務法或身心障礙者權益保障法，均無明文規定雇主負有此一積極性調整措施義務，亦即，以現行法制下，尚無法明確導引出一般雇主，不論其營業規模大小，除了應消極就身心障礙者予以平等對待外，另尚須積極地負額外採取輔助、其他溝通或變更其既定工作流程等積極性調整措施義務。」從這些法官的理解看來，目前很難在行政或司法程序中主張實質平等。但衛福部對此似乎尚未採取修法以外的行動，讓合理調整這項權利被各界理解。

以《身心障礙者權益保障法》修法版本中的條文來看，我們認為合理調整的適用範圍有限，而且缺乏 CRPD 委員會第 6 號一般性意見的許多規定，例如義務承擔人、對話的必要性、由義務方承擔「不當負擔」的舉證責任、政府對調整措施的補助、以及對於拒絕合理調整的救濟和懲罰。這些要素對於合理調整的推動至關重要。此外，在立法理由中，寫到「機關(構)、學校、事業 機構、法人或團體得召開審議會議決定身心障礙者個別障礙需求是否對其造成過度或不當負擔，並應檢視調整方法在法律上與實質上是否可行、檢視調整措施是否與其目的相關及合乎比例。」看起來審查的重點是放在障礙者的申請是否合理，而非義務方如何善盡其責任。

即使被法院認定為歧視案件，因為台灣沒有反歧視法，我們也必須依賴相關法律 (如《就業服務法》、《民法》) 的規定來尋求補救。不幸的是，這些規定往往不足以支持復原或賠償的要求，雇主或其他責任方往往僅受到輕微的懲罰。

我們認為反歧視法應該至少包括下列要素：

1. 明確定義「基於身心障礙之歧視」
   1. 歧視之形式 (直接、間接、騷擾、拒絕提供合理調整)
   2. 歧視樣態/類型/作用，包括關連性歧視、被視為障礙者之歧視、多重/交織性歧視
2. 反歧視、促進平等的積極義務
   1. 形式平等
   2. 實質平等
3. 被歧視者之救濟
4. 歧視者之處罰

For an English Joint Statement, please see below.

Taiwan International Medical Alliance and Covenants Watch

Article 5  Equality and non-discrimination: reasonable accommodation

After the review of Taiwan’s initial report on the CRPD, the Review Committee recommended in paragraph 23(b) of the Concluding Observation that the State “Define in its national legislation and regulations the principle of reasonable accommodation in all areas in line with article 2 of the CRPD, ensure the legal recognition that the denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes a form of discrimination, and ensure their application in practice in both the public and private sectors.” Furthermore, in paragraph 82, The IRC requests that the State, within 12 months and in accordance with article 35 (2) of the CRPD, publicly disseminate information on the measures taken to implement the IRC’s recommendations.

Now five years have passed since the first review. We have seen no progress on this front until one month ago, when at the end of June, the Executive Yuan announced its plan to revise the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act. In the five years, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has not been promoting the concept and application of reasonable accommodation. This is a neglect of duty because, according to Article 10 of the Act to Implement the CRPD, the provision of the Convention can be applied before the amendment of domestic legislation.

During these five years, surely there are many cases of discrimination on the basis of disabilities. In litigations for these cases, it is often the persons with disabilities and their lawyers who have to prove to the court that it is a legal right to claim reasonable accommodation. Taiwan’s judges often fail to recognize that the provision of reasonable accommodation is a positive duty to eliminate discrimination. They either misunderstood reasonable accommodation as a form of affirmative action, wrongly believe that reasonable accommodation equals the “job redesign” which is encouraged by the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, or, get confused by the two different Chinese translations of reasonable accommodation into reasonable treatment. I quote from a judgment in 2020, “neither the Employment Services Act nor the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act expressly obliges employers to take such positive adjustment measures, that is, under the current legal system, it is not yet possible to clearly lead to the general employer… to actively undertake the obligation to take additional positive adjustment measures such as assisting, other communication or changing their established work processes.” From these examples that it is clear how difficult it is to claim substantive equality in administrative and judicial proceedings.

Now, to look at the Article in the draft revision, the reasonable accommodation in the article has a limited scope, and many components in General Comment No 6 were missing. There was no mentioning of: the nature of obligation, the need to initiate the dialogue, burden of proof for undue burden, who should bear the burden of proof, governmental support for making accommodation, penalties if denial of reasonable accommodation, no mention whether this constitutes discrimination, and there was no remedies if RA was denied.

(Also, the Legislation Note for this article reads “Public and private institutions, schools, business entities, legal persons, or organizations may convene review meetings to decide whether the particular needs of persons with physical and mental disabilities have placed undue or undue burden on them, and should examine whether accommodation are legally and substantively feasible, and whether accommodations are relevant to their purposes and proportionate.” This note looks like the duty bearers can call a meeting to scrutinize the request of RA, rather than how the duty bearer can fulfill their obligations.)

Even if the case claiming discrimination is established, because there is no anti-discrimination law in Taiwan, we have to rely on the provisions in relevant laws (e.g., Employment Service Act, Civil Code) in seeking remedy. Unfortunately, the provisions are often not enough to sustain the requests for restitution or compensation, and employers or other responsible parties often get away with minor penalties. Furthermore, none of these laws impose a positive duty on the government or other duty bearers to eliminate discriminations based on disabilities. It is therefore difficulty to argue for substantive equality in administrative or judicial proceedings. Therefore, we urge the government to draft a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, which should contain these elements:

• To clear define discrimination based on disability, which should contain these elements:
  1. different forms of discrimination: direct, indirect, denial of reasonable accommodation, and harrassment
  2. different types/patterns of discrimination, such as discrimination by association, discrimination based on perceived impairment, multiple and intersectional discrimination
• positive duties to eliminate discrimination and promote equality
  1. formal equality
  2. substantive equality
• Remedies for victims of discrimination
• Penalties for discriminators