차별이란 무엇인가 : 차별금지법상 차별금지사유의 의의

홍성수 ( Sung Soo Hong ) 법과사회이론학회(구 법과사회이론연구회) 2021 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.66

2020년 여름부터 차별금지법 입법 논의가 본격화되기 시작했다. 하지만 차별금지법의 세부쟁점에 관한 논의가 불충분한 상황이고, 심의과정에 참고할만한 자료도 부족하다. 차별금지법에 반대하는 입장도 있는데 이에 대응하기 위해서라도 차별금지법에 대한 논의가 더욱 심화될 필요가 있다. 차별금지법상 차별의 개념에는 차별금지사유, 차별금지영역, 차별행위, 차별의 종류, 차별의 예외 등의 세부 쟁점이 있는데, 본 논문에서는 차별금지사유에 관한 쟁점을 집중적으로 다뤄보았다. 차별금지사유는 차별이 성립하는 이유 또는 근거로서 차별금지법의 중핵을 이룬다. 이 논문에서는 차별금지사유의 의의 또는 차별금지사유를 정하는 기준·원리로, 1) 차별금지사유로 구분되는 집단은 상당 기간 차별받아왔고 지금도 차별받고 있는 소수자 집단이고, 2) 차별금지사유는 고용, 교육, 재화 용역의 이용 공급 등에서 고려되어야할 합당한 이유가 있는 유의미한 요소가 아니며, 3) 차별금지사유는 생물학적, 태생적, 사회적 요인으로 인해 어떤 사람의 정체성을 구성하는 일부가 된 것으로서, 여기에는 사실상 선택의 여지가 없거나 상당한 제한을 받으며, 4) 차별금지사유로 부당하게 구분하는 것은 인간존엄을 훼손하고 차별을 조장하는 효과를 낳는다는 점 등을 제시해 보았다. 이러한 논의를 바탕으로 새롭게 제정될 포괄적 차별금지법에 포함되어야 하는 차별금지사유를 제안했다. 먼저 차별금지사유는 예시적 규정임을 명확히 할 필요가 있고, 예시적 규정이긴 하나 되도록 상세하게 제시하여 시민들에게 금지되는 차별이 무엇인지 알릴 필요가 있다는 점을 지적했다. 그리고 국제 사례와 2000년대 들어 한국사회의 변화된 현실을 고려하여, 현행 국가인권위원회법에 규정된 19가지 사유에 더해, 성별정체성, 언어, 국적, 고용형태, 경제적 상황, 사회적 지위, 직업, 노조활동, 문화, 유전정보, 출신학교 등의 사유를 추가할 것을 제안해 보았다. In 2020, a bill of anti-discrimination has been put forward and this matter is currently being discussed around the National Assembly. However, detailed discussions about anti-discrimination act have not been fully conducted. For example, concerning the concept of discrimination, there are lots of detailed topics such as protected characteristics, the scope of discrimination, discriminatory action, and exemptions of discrimination and we have to examine these specific topic in more details. This article focuses on protected characteristics, which is also called protected grounds, protected attributes. This is because protected characteristics are one of the key issues of anti-discrimination law. In particular, anti-discrimination law can be justified by properly articulating protected characteristics. This article tries to propose a principle or standard of listing protected characteristics in anti-discrimination act as follows. Firstly, A group which is identified by protected characteristics is social minority group which have suffer from discrimination, Secondly, protected characteristics are not an justifiable elements in employment or education. In general, protected characteristics such as sex and race should not be considered as genuine occupational qualification in employment. Thirdly, protected characteristics cannot be voluntarily chosen by themselves. Lastly, exclusion by protected characteristics lead to impairing human dignity and promote or incite discrimination. As a result, considering the above discussions, this article proposes the detailed list of protected characteristics in anti-discrimination act. In addition to current protected characteristics in Human Rights Commission Act, gender identity, language, nationality, employment status, social position, occupation, labor union, economic situation, culture, genetic information and academic background. This can be also considered in reforming the Constitution and enacting hate speech act and hate speech crime.

What causes the experience of discrimination in non-regular workers?

Seong-Hoon Kang,Jin-Ho Song,Tae Hwan Koh,Do Myung Paek,Jong-Tae Park,HoSun Chun 대한직업환경의학회 2017 대한직업환경의학회지 Vol.29 No.-

Background: Discrimination based on type of employment against non-regular workers is still a social issue. However, there are few studies on job factors that affect the discrimination experience in each type of employment or the association between discrimination and health impact indicators. This study examined occupational health characteristics according to discrimination experience and relating factors that affect discrimination experience. Methods: This study used the 4th Korean Working Conditions Survey (2014) provided by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. Among the 50,000 workers, 7731 non-regular wage workers were selected as study population. To examine differences in discrimination experience, we used a t-test on occupational risk factors, occupational stress, occupational characteristics, health impact indicators. To identify the factors that affected discrimination experience, we performed binomial logistic regression analysis. Results: The discrimination experience rate was significantly higher in male, aged less than 40 years old, above high school graduate than middle school graduate, higher wage level, shorter employment period and larger company’s scale. As factors related to discrimination experience, they experienced discrimination more as occupational stress was higher and when they were temporary or daily workers rather than permanent workers, work patterns were not consistent, and the support of boss was low. It showed that physical, musculoskeletal, and mental occupational risk scores and subjective job instability were higher and work environment satisfaction was lower in discrimination experienced group. Conclusions: The present study showed that the demographic and occupational factors were complexly related to discrimination experience in non-regular workers. The experience of discrimination had increased when occupational stress was higher, they were temporary or daily workers rather than permanent workers, work patterns were not consistent, and their boss’ support was low. Improving various relating factors, (e.g. occupational stresses, employment status and occupational characteristics), this would ultimately expect to improve non-regular workers’ discrimination.

고용상 승진/승격 차별로 인한 손해배상액 산정의 쟁점 ― 서울중앙지방법원 2022. 11. 3. 선고 2019가합571199 판결을 중심으로 ―

차성안 서울대학교노동법연구회 2023 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.55

Discrimination in employment promotions that has accumulated over a long period of time poses several difficult problems in calculating damages. These issues go beyond simple calculation issues and have a significant impact on whether or not claims for damages due to promotion discrimination are accepted, the type of damages, and the final winning amount. When promotion discrimination in the form of gender discrimination is framed as a violation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value between men and women, various issues related to the selection of workers for comparison appear to be inextricably linked not only to the determination of the existence of discrimination but also to the issue of calculating specific damages. It is not always necessary to limit the workers to be compared to specific male workers who joined the company at the same time, and it is necessary to use the average figure of all or a certain range of workers to be compared. In relation to discrimination against fixed-term workers, etc., the legal principle of some cases that the person receiving the lowest treatment among the candidates for comparison should be selected as the worker to be compared is difficult to apply to promotion discrimination in the form of gender discrimination. The most challenging issue is whether to award proportionate damages when the probability of promotion is uncertain. In the United States, there are cases where the lost chance doctrine, developed from compensation for damages for loss of opportunity for treatment and recovery due to misdiagnosis, has been applied to promotion discrimination. In the case of Korea, the following issues are problematic. 1) Whether to directly recognize proportional damages as a method of calculating damages for promotion discrimination; 2) Considering that although the fact of damage is acknowledged, proving the amount of damage is very difficult, whether Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act should be applied; 3) Considering that it is impossible to determine compensation for property damages, whether to recognize the complementary function of consolation money. Recognizing the existence of promotion discrimination, but denying compensation due to the difficulty of calculating the amount of damages, results in the injustice of unfairly exempting the employer from liability for discrimination. Therefore, compensation for damages must be granted through any one of the three methods above. As a result of the application of the statute of limitations to claims for damages due to discrimination in promotion, it may only be possible to claim wage differences within a certain period from the date of filing the lawsuit. On the other hand, even if the promotion discrimination occurred during a period in the past when it is impossible to claim damages due to the completion of the statute of limitations, it does not mean that it is impossible for the wage difference to increase during the period when the statute of limitations has not been completed. Regarding the correction of discrimination in promotion itself, research is also needed on how to distinguish between cases where retroactive promotion itself should be ordered and cases where only the provision of future promotion opportunities should be ordered. There are also issues such as how to utilize the newly legislated Labor Relations Commission's order to correct discrimination in promotion discrimination cases, and how to structure the specific contents of the court's order when seeking correction of discrimination through a court ruling. The follow-up research is also needed on how to establish the relationship between claims for future wage differences and Judicial Penalties, in case that the employer does not follow the court order. 오랜 기간에 걸쳐 누적된 고용상 승진/승격차별은 손해배상액 산정에 있어 까다로운 여러 문제를 품고 있다. 이러한 쟁점들은 단순히 계산의 문제를 넘어 승격차별에 따른 재산상 손해배상청구의 사실상 인정 여부, 손해배상의 종류, 최종 인용금액 등에 큰 영향을 미친다. 남녀차별 형태의 승진/승격차별을 남녀간 동일가치노동 동일임금 원칙 위반으로 구성하는 경우 비교대상 근로자 선정과 관련된 여러 쟁점들이 차별의 존재 여부 판단뿐만 아니라 구체적인 손해배상액 산정의 쟁점과 불가분적으로 연결되어 나타난다. 손해배상 산정 시 비교대상 근로자를 같은 기수의 특정 남성 근로자로 항상 한정할 필요는 없고, 전체 또는 일정한 범위의 비교대상 근로자의 평균적인 수치를 이용할 필요가 있다. 기간제 근로자 등에 대한 차별 관련하여 비교대상 근로자 후보군 중 가장 낮은 처우를 받는 자를 비교대상 근로자로 선정해야 한다는 일부 판례 법리는 가장 낮은 처우를 받은 근로자의 속성이 차별받는 근로자에게도 인정되고 그 속성에 따른 차별이 정당한 때에 한하여 적용되어야 하는 것이므로 이를 남녀차별 형태의 승격차별에 기계적으로 적용하기는 어렵다. 가장 도전적인 쟁점은 승진/승격이 법관에게 확신을 줄 정도로 확실하지 않은 경우 승격확률을 고려한 비율적 손해배상을 인정할지 여부이다. 미국의 경우 오진단으로 인한 치료, 회복의 기회상실에 대한 손해배상에서 발달된 기회 상실 이론이 승진/승격차별에 적용된 사례가 있다. 한국의 경우 1) 승진/승격차별의 재산적 손해배상액 산정의 방법으로 비율적 손해배상을 정면으로 인정할지, 2) 손해 발생 사실은 인정되나 손해액의 증명이 매우 어려운 경우로 보아 민사소송법 제202조의2를 적용할지, 3) 재산적 손해배상액의 확정이 불가능한 경우로 보아 위자료의 보완적 기능을 인정할지를 고민해 볼 수 있다. 승진/승격차별의 존재는 인정하나 손해배상액 산정의 어려움을 이유로 권리구제를 거부하는 것은 차별에 대한 사용자의 책임을 부당하게 면책하는 정의에 반하는 결과를 가져오기 때문에, 위 3가지 방법 중 어느 하나를 통한 구제는 인정되어야 할 것이다. 승진/승격차별로 인한 손해배상청구권에 대한 소멸시효 적용의 결과 소제기일로부터 일정기간 내의 임금차액 청구만 가능해질 수는 있다. 반면, 소멸시효가 완성된 기간 동안에 발생한 승진/승격차별의 누적으로 위법한 임금격차가 쌓인 결과 임금차액 청구가 가능한 기간 동안의 임금차액은 누적적으로 증가할 수 있다. 승진/승격차별 자체의 차별시정과 관련하여, 소급적인 승진 자체를 명하는 경우와 장래의 승진기회의 제공만을 명하는 경우를 어떻게 구별할지에 관한 연구도 필요하다. 제도화된 노동위원회의 차별시정 명령을 승진/승격차별사례에 어떻게 활용할지, 법원의 판결을 통하여 차별시정을 명할 때 그 주문을 어떻게 구성해야 할지, 사용자가 이에 불응하는 경우 장래임금 차액 청구와 간접강제 청구의 관계를 어떻게 설정할지 등에 관한 후속연구도 필요하다.

What causes the experience of discrimination in non-regular workers?

Kang, Seong-Hoon,Song, Jin-Ho,Koh, Tae Hwan,Paek, Do Myung,Park, Jong-Tae,Chun, HoSun Springer Nature 2017 Annals of occupational and environmental medicine Vol.29 No.1

<P><B>Background</B></P><P>Discrimination based on type of employment against non-regular workers is still a social issue. However, there are few studies on job factors that affect the discrimination experience in each type of employment or the association between discrimination and health impact indicators. This study examined occupational health characteristics according to discrimination experience and relating factors that affect discrimination experience.</P><P><B>Methods</B></P><P>This study used the 4th Korean Working Conditions Survey (2014) provided by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. Among the 50,000 workers, 7731 non-regular wage workers were selected as study population. To examine differences in discrimination experience, we used a t-test on occupational risk factors, occupational stress, occupational characteristics, health impact indicators. To identify the factors that affected discrimination experience, we performed binomial logistic regression analysis.</P><P><B>Results</B></P><P>The discrimination experience rate was significantly higher in male, aged less than 40 years old, above high school graduate than middle school graduate, higher wage level, shorter employment period and larger company’s scale. As factors related to discrimination experience, they experienced discrimination more as occupational stress was higher and when they were temporary or daily workers rather than permanent workers, work patterns were not consistent, and the support of boss was low. It showed that physical, musculoskeletal, and mental occupational risk scores and subjective job instability were higher and work environment satisfaction was lower in discrimination experienced group.</P><P><B>Conclusions</B></P><P>The present study showed that the demographic and occupational factors were complexly related to discrimination experience in non-regular workers. The experience of discrimination had increased when occupational stress was higher, they were temporary or daily workers rather than permanent workers, work patterns were not consistent, and their boss’ support was low. Improving various relating factors, (e.g. occupational stresses, employment status and occupational characteristics), this would ultimately expect to improve non-regular workers’ discrimination.</P>

직장 내에서의 차별경험과 직장만족도와의 관계: 구직동기의 매개효과

이혜경,차재빈 한국취업진로학회 2022 취업진로연구 Vol.12 No.2

Discrimination in the workplace is highly likely to lead to a decrease in job satisfaction, and low job satisfaction is highly likely to lead to high absenteeism and deterioration of organizational relationships, which in turn leads to a decrease in productivity. Workers' experiences of discrimination act as stress, and it is important to strengthen internal capacity to control and alleviate such stress. Therefore, despite the existence of experiences of discrimination in the workplace, studies that can effectively deal with discrimination in the workplace are needed because active research has not been conducted in the meantime. The purpose of this study is to examine how the level of discrimination experienced by workers at work affects job satisfaction, and to examine the mediating effect of job search motivation in the relationship between the level of discrimination and job satisfaction. For this purpose, this study used the data of the 14th survey of the youth panel data, and it was targeted to 5,600 people who responded faithfully out of 9,773 currently employed workers. t-test with SPSS 22.0 for analysis. Correlation was analyzed, and regression analysis was performed to verify the mediating effect. As a result of the analysis, first, there were significant differences in job satisfaction and job search motivation according to discrimination experience. In other words, the level of job satisfaction and job search motivation was higher among those who had never experienced discrimination than those who had experienced discrimination. Second, it was found that the level of discrimination experienced by workers had a significant effect on job satisfaction and job search motivation. Third, in the process where the level of discrimination experienced by workers affects job satisfaction, the partial mediating effect of job seeking motivation was verified. In conclusion, a career education program that can strengthen job search motivation for workers who have experienced discrimination in the workplace and practical measures to improve job satisfaction were discussed. It is also intended to be used as basic data to prevent discrimination in the workplace. 근로현장에서의 근로자 차별은 직장만족도 저하로 이어질 가능성이 높다. 즉 낮은 직장만족도는 잦은 결근, 조직관계 악화로 이어져 결국 생산성의 하락을 가져올 가능성이 높다. 근로자들의 직장 내 차별경험은 스트레스로 작용하는데 이러한 스트레스를 조절하고 완화하기 위한 내적 역량 강화가 중요하다. 이에 직장 내에서의 차별경험이 존재하고 있음에도 불구하고, 그간 활발한 연구가 이루어지지 못한 실정이기 때문에 직장 내 차별을 효과적으로 대처할 수 있는 연구가 필요하다. 본 연구의 목적은 근로자들이 직장 내에서 경험하는 차별수준이 직장만족도에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 살펴보고, 차별수준과 직장만족도 간의 관계에서 구직동기의 매개효과를 검증하는 것이다. 이를 위해 본 연구는 청년패널 데이터 14차 조사자료를 사용하였고, 현재 재직 중인 근로자 9,773명 중 성실하게 응답한 5,600명을 대상으로 하였다. 분석을 위해 SPSS 22.0으로 빈도, t-test. 평균값 분석, 상관관계를 분석하였고, 회귀분석을 실시하여 매개효과를 검증하였다. 본석결과 첫째, 직장 내 차별경험에 따른 직장만족도, 구직동기는 유의미한 차이를 나타냈다. 즉 차별 무경험자가 차별 유경험자보다 직장만족도와 구직동기 수준이 높게 나타났다. 둘째, 근로자들이 경험하는 직장 내 차별수준이 직장만족도와 구직동기에 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 근로자들이 경험하는 직장 내 차별수준이 직장만족도에 영향을 미치는 과정에서 구직동기는 부분 매개효과가 검증되었다. 본 연구결과를 통해 직장 내에서 차별을 경험한 근로자들을 대상으로 이들의 구직동기를 강화할 수 있는 진로교육 프로그램과 직장만족도 향상을 위한 실천적 방안에 대해 논의하였다. 또한 근로자들이 만족하는 직장임을 가늠해 주는 평등한 직장 문화 조성을 위한 제도적, 정책적 자료로 활용하고자 한다.

結婚移民者の人種差別に關する法的 問題と改善方案

( Miyagi Keina ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.4

As of August 2014, foreigners in Korea are 1,710,896 people. The largest group of the domestic immigrant population are migrant workers, and followed by marriage immigrants, naturalized citizens, foreign students and overseas Koreans. With the rise in marriage immigrants, there is much racial discrimination in Korea against marriage immigrants who have different color or are from developing countries. we shouldn’t treat racial discrimination problems in Korea lightly. Korea has already signed Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has ever raised the issue of racial discrimination problems in Korea and recommended to legislate for the elimination of racial discrimination. But Korean government is still lukewarm. Racism can not be neglected any more because it can cause a big problem in our society. The laws that prohibit discrimination in our country exist, but there are scattered in several laws, and punishments for violating laws are too weak and the laws that directly regulate racism still don’t exist. We have to recognize that we can not solve a variety of racial discrimination problems in our society with simple individual consciousness and awareness. Actively making laws banning racial discrimination, it also necessary to make efforts to eliminate such racial discrimination. This paper mainly reviewed the situation of racial discrimination of marriage immigrants and would raise legal problems and improvements.

연령차별금지의 법제와 법적 문제 : 미국ㆍ네덜란드ㆍ호주의 연령차별금지법을 중심으로

李準一(YI Zoon-il) 미국헌법학회 2008 美國憲法硏究 Vol.19 No.1

헌법이나 법률에서 열거하고 있는 다양한 차별금지사유가 있지만 최근에 가장 주목을 받고 있는 것이 연령(나이, age)이다. 출산기피와 수명연장을 특징으로 하는 현대사회의 고령화 현상으로 인해 고령자의 고용을 촉진하고 안정화하는 동시에 고령자에 대한 사회복지적 부담을 줄이려는 목적에서 연령을 이유로한 차별을 규제해야 할 필요성이 점차 증가하고 있기 때문이다. 비슷한 현상을 경험하고 있는 한국사회도 동일한 필요성을 심각하게 인식해야 할 시기가 되었다. 미국의 고용상 연령차별금지법(Age Discrimination in Employment Act: ADEA, 1967)은 다른 국가와 비교할 때 상당히 일찍 만들어졌다. 이 법률은 고용영역에서 발생하는 40세 이상의 자에 대한 차별을 규제하기 위한 목적으로 제정되었다. 이 법률이 적용되는 사용자는 20인 이상의 근로자를 고용한 사용자에 한정되지만 연방정부뿐만 아니라 주정부나 지방정부를 포함한다. 마찬가지로 고용상 연령을 이유로 한 차별행위를 금지하기 위하여 제정된 네덜란드의 고용상 연령차별금지법(Wet gelijke behandeling op grond van leeftijd bij de arbeid: WGBL, 2003)은 연령을 이유로 한 직접차별과 결과적으로 연령을 이유로 한 차별을 발생시킨 간접차별을 모두 금지한다. 미국과 네덜란드의 연령차별금지법이 고용이나 직업과 관련된 영역에 국한된 차별금지법이라면 2004년에 제정된 호주의 연령차별금지법(Age Discrimination Act: ADA, 2004)은 그보다 포괄적인 영역에서 연령을 이유로 한 차별을 금지하는 법률이다. 다른 차별과 마찬가지로 연령차별도 연령을 이유로 한 직접차별(direct discrimination)뿐만 아니라 간접차별(indirect discrimination)을 모두 포함하는지가 문제될 수 있다. 연령을 이유로 한 직접차별과 간접차별은 모두 입법을 통해서든 법률의 해석을 통해서든 차별의 개념에 포함되는 것이 바람직하다. 또한 연령을 이유로 한 괴롭힘(harassment)이 차별에 해당하는지도 문제가 될 수 있다. 현실적으로 연령을 이유로 괴롭히는 행위들이 빈번하게 발생할 수 있다는 측면에서, 그리고 차별을 받은 피해자의 인권을 효과적으로 보호한다는 측면에서 연령을 이유로 한 괴롭힘도 차별의 개념에 포함되는 것으로 보는 것이 타당하다. 연령을 이유로 직접 차별대우를 하는 행위는 당연히 차별에 포함되지만 다른 사람에게 연령을 이유로 한 차별대우를 지시하는 행위(instructions to discriminate)가 차별에 해당하는지가 문제될 수 있다. 차별의 발생가능성을 원천적으로 예방하고 차별의 지시로 인한 새로운 차별을 방지한다는 측면에서 차별의 지시도 차별의 개념에 포함시킬 필요성이 강하게 요청된다. 다른 모든 차별금지사유와 마찬가지로 진정직업자격은 연령차별에서도 차별의 예외가 된다. 또한 네덜란드나 호주의 경우처럼 특정한 연령대에 있는 사람들의 고용촉진이나 불이익해소를 위한 적극적 조치는 차별의 예외로 허용될 수 있다. EU의 2000년 제78호 지침도 차별의 예외로서 적극적 조치(positive action)가 가능하다는 점을 명시하고 있다. 각국이 처한 역사적, 사회적 맥락이 매우 상이하기 때문에 헌법상 보장된 평등원칙과 차별금지원칙을 구체화하는 차별금지법의 체계도 다양할 수밖에 없다. 고용영역이 특별히 강조되어야 하는 맥락을 가진 국가에서는 고용영역에 한정하여 다양한 차별금지사유를 포함하는 차별금지법으로 연령차별을 규제하거나(EU모델) 오로지 연령을 이유로 한 차별을 금지하는 법률을 통해 연령차별을 규제할 수 있다(미국과 네덜란드 모델). 반면에 고용영역을 특별하게 강조해야 할 맥락이 없는 국가에서는 연령을 이유로 모든 차별영역에서 발생할 수 있는 차별을 규율하는 차별금지법(호주 모델)이나 다양한 차별금지사유를 이유로 다양한 차별영역에서 발생할 수 있는 차별을 규율하는 차별금지법을 제정할 수 있다(한국 모델). 연령차별금지법은 연령을 이유로 한 차별이 없는 “연령통합적 사회”로 가는 제도적 기초가 될 수 있을 것으로 기대한다. Having the opinion that the age is one of the grounds because of which discriminations shall be prohibited, many countries and international organizations have made provisions for the protection against age discrimination. Therefore, the age discrimination, including not only any direct but indirect discrimination based on age, harassment on grounds of age, retaliation in relation to age discrimination and instructions to discriminate, are unlawful according to these national and international acts against age discrimination. Moreover, these acts are applied to the field of employment, education, provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation. U.S., Netherlands and Australia have specific acts related to non-discrimination based on age. The acts of U.S. and Netherlands focus on employment and occupation, but the act of Australia includes all the field of discrimination. Both models have strong and weak point as well. According to their historical and social context of countries concerned can determine the type of law on non-discrimination against age. Korea has a general non-discrimination act (National Human Rights Commission Act) which provides that a discrimination on the basis of 19 grounds including age shall be prohibited in the field of employment, education and provision of goods, services and facilities etc. There are three legal problems about the discrimination because of age: the concept, the exception and the scope of discrimination. It is very important to recognize that the concept of the age discrimination include any indirect discrimination, harassment, retaliation and instructions of discrimination. Relating to the exception of discrimination, bona fide occupational qualification, positive action and employment policy belong to general exceptions. The bona fide occupational qualification means the genuine and essential occupational requirements of particular job. Positive actions are the actions that prevent or compensate for disadvantage of persons of particular age. Employment policies which promote equal opportunities of younger or older workers can justify the discrimination because of age. All of these exceptions of discrimination is required to be justified by legitimate aims and appropriate and necessary means to achieve the aims. It is desirable for the scope of discrimination that an act prohibiting age discrimination is able to be applied to extend to all the field of discrimination. Every form of acts of non-discrimination based on age may contribute to combat and eliminate any age discrimination and to protect and promote the right of all persons to equality before the law.

장애인 체육활동 차별 실태와 장애인차별금지법의 실효성 강화

김정현 ( Jeong-hyun Kim ),최승권 ( Seoung-gweon Choi ) 한국특수체육학회 2019 한국특수체육학회지 Vol.27 No.4

본 연구는 우리나라 장애인 체육활동에서의 차별 실태를 알아보고 문제점을 도출하여 체육활동 차별금지와 관련된 법의 실효성을 강화하는 방안을 마련하고자 하는데 그 목적이 있다. 2008년 장애인차별금지법 시행 이후 여러 분야에서 장애인에 대한 차별이 완화되고 있다. 그러나 각종 실태조사나 언론 및 국가인권위원회의 사례에서 나타나는 바와 같이 장애인의 체육활동(참여, 관람)에 대한 차별은 여전히 존재하고 있다. 장애인차별금지법은 장애를 이유로 발생하는 일상생활 속의 차별을 금지하고, 그러한 차별대우로 인해 피해를 받은 이들의 권익을 구제하기 위한 목적으로 제정되었다는 점에서 그 의미가 크다. 그러나 그 내용이 구체적이지 않아 현실적으로 법률 위반에 따른 처벌 등이 이루어지기 어려운 문제가 존재한다. 이러한 규정의 모호함은 국가인권위원회와 법원을 통한 구제에 있어서도 소극적인 결론을 내는 원인으로도 작용하며, 장애인차별금지법을 선언적 의미의 법률로 격하시킨다. 이러한 차별을 해소하기 위해 현행 장애인차별금지법의 실효성을 강화하는 방향으로 개선이 이루어져야만 한다. 첫째, 제도적인 측면에서 체육 분야에 대한 실질적인 차별 해소가 가능하도록 내용을 구체화하는 방향으로 장애인차별금지법의 개정이 필요하다. 둘째, 법의 운영 측면에서는 국가인권위원회와 법원에서 보다 적극적으로 차별인정 및 권리구제 조치를 이행하여야 할 것이다. The study aims to find out about discrimination in sports activities for the disabled and come up with measures to strengthen the effectiveness of laws related to the prohibition of discrimination in sports activities. After the introduction of 「Act on the ban on discrimination against the disabled and remedies」 ( ‘Disability Discrimination Act’ hereunder) discrimination against the disabled has been mitigated in many areas. However, discrimination in sports activities (participation and watching) of the disabled still exists, as shown in various surveys of the media and cases reported by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. Disability Discrimination Act is significant in that it was enacted to prohibit discrimination against the disabled and to seek for the remedy of their damages of those affected by such discrimination. However, it is difficult to punish those who violated this law because the contents of the Act are not specific. The ambiguity of these provisions also serves as a source of negative conclusions in remedies through the National Human Rights Commission and the court and reduces its effectiveness by lowering the status of the Disability Discrimination Act to a mere declaration. To resolve this problem, it should be improved to the direction to enforce the effectiveness of the current Disability Discrimination Act. First, the Disability Discrimination Act should be amended by specifying the contents of the provisions in order to resolve the discrimination in the field of sports practically from the institutional aspect. Second, the National Human Rights Commission and the courts should take more active measures to actively identify discrimination and realize remedy rights in terms of the operation of the law.

포괄적 차별금지법의 의의와 필요성

박한희 ( Park Hanhee ) 영미문학연구회 2021 안과 밖 Vol.- No.50

On June 29, 2020, an anti-discrimination bill is proposed on the 21st National Assembly. First proposed in 2007, the anti-discrimination bill has not been passed in the National Assembly despite three attempts to legislate it. Even in 2013, the draft bills are retracted after organized opposition from anti-LGBTI and conservative Protestant organizations. Therefore, as the bill has been proposed after seven years since 2013, discussions on the enactment of the anti-discrimination law have been active. In the history of a decade-long attempt to enact a law, the anti-discrimination law has been meaningful as the least device the state should do against the hate and discrimination. In particular, anti-discrimination laws are significant in that they fill gaps in individual anti-discrimination laws, expand the concept of discrimination, provide effective remedies, and clarify national responsibilities. Facing a series of recent cases based on hate and discrimination, many people ask "would it have been different if there had been a anti-discrimination law?". Now, we hope to go beyond these questions and ask what more we can talk about through the anti-discrimination law.

차별시정기구에 대한 비교법적 고찰 - 미국과 캐나다의 차별시정기구에 대한 검토를 기초로 한국 국가인권위원회의 방향 제시 -

이준일 ( Zoon Il Yi ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2007 고려법학 Vol.0 No.49

Many governments of the world established or are establishing their own national institutions responsible for the protection and promotion of the equality. There are two types of the national institution for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws: the one focused on the discrimination and the another comprehensive nation human rights institution. Anti-discrimination Commissions of the U.S. and Canada belong to the first type. They are role-models of the anti-discrimination Commission for another nations. The american federal Institution that enforce anti-discrimination laws of the U.S. is the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The agency conducts the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws focusing on the area of occupation (workplace). The EEOC is composed of 5 commissioners, including a Chair and a Vice Chair, who are appointed for five-year by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As laws that are enforced by the EEOC, there are ① Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII, 1964), ② the Equal Pay Act (EPA, 1963), ③ the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA, 1967), and ④ the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990). Types of discrimination against that the U.S. anti-discrimination laws protect individuals are ① Age Discrimination, ② Disability Discrimination, ③ Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination, ④ National Origin Discrimination, ⑤ Pregnancy Discrimination, ⑥ Race-Based Discrimination, ⑦ Religious Discrimination, ⑧ Retaliation, ⑨ Sex-Based Discrimination, and ⑩ Sexual Harassment. The EEOC is characterized by close liaison with courts of law and active using of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR). The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is the canadian national Institution that enforce anti-discrimination laws of Canada. The Commission protects individuals from discriminatory practices not only on the area of occupation, but also on another areas related discrimination. The anti-discrimination laws administered by CHRC are ① Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA, 1976-1977) and ② Employment Equity Act (EPA, 1995). According to the CHRA, it is unlawful to discriminate on the ground of ① race, ② national or ethic origin, ③ colour, ④ religion, ⑤ age, ⑥ sex, including pregnancy and childbearing, ⑦ sexual orientation, ⑧ marital status, ⑨ family status, ⑩ physical or mental disability, including dependence on alcohol or drugs, ⑪ pardoned criminal conviction. The characteristics of the CHRC are the dualism of the anti-discrimination institution: CHRC and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) and strengthening and promotion of services of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR), including arbitration, mediation, negotiation, conciliation, etc. The korean national institution that has the responsibility to ensure the korean anti-discrimination law (the National Human Rights Commission Act: NHRCA, 2002) is a comprehensive national human rights institution. The agency works to protect and promote human rights including both freedom and equality. It is necessary for the members of the korean National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to strengthen their professional knowledge and experience and their sensitivity to human rights. And NHRC is required to reconstruct his role as the national institution for the anti-discrimination. Finally, it is needed to introduce actively and promote alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services that the anti-discrimination Commissions of the U.S. and Canada are using increasingly.