就業上年齡單端與雙端之歧視認定：美國就業上年齡歧視法與澳洲年齡歧視法之比較

The Age Discrimination in Employment under the Laws Governing the Discrimination in One-End or Two-End: A Comparative Study on US ADEA and Australian ADA

10.6535/JSH.202111_9(1).0001

謝棋楠(Chey-Nan Hsieh)

年齡歧視 ； 年齡組 ； 中高齡 ； Age Discrimination ； Age Group ； Middle and Senior Age

科學與人文研究

9卷1期（2021 / 11 / 25）

1 - 13

繁體中文

各主要國家勞動力日漸老化，連移民大國之美國亦然。歧視是緣於（arising from）或基於（on the basis of）不同群體間有差別。只要存在差別就有可能產生歧視，不同年齡也是一種差別，當然也可能因而會產生歧視。然而年齡的增加是人們與生俱來無法改變的事實。任何人都無法透過後天的努力，而改變這個事實。年齡此一範疇之受保護之群體，是屬於一個相對的特性（relative characteristics）之群體。就業上年齡歧視的各種態樣在年長者單端，與年長與年輕者雙端皆有可能涉及。本文比較只保護中高齡者勞工單端之美國就業上年齡歧視法與對年長端與年輕端皆予以保護之澳洲年齡歧視法。由比較美國就業上年齡歧視法與澳洲之年齡歧視法可知，美國僅以保護中高齡勞工之單端之不受年齡歧視，其且以確切年齡四十歲作為區分，被保護群體與不被保護之群體，雖然不保護較年輕年齡之勞工，有使年輕勞工受不當歧視，而無法受到保護之不利情形。惟其制度，就認定就業上年齡歧視之基準之建立，較為確定。

The labor force in major countries is aging, even the United States, a major country of immigrants. Discrimination is arising from or on the basis of differences between different groups. As long as there are differences, discrimination may occur. Different ages are also a difference, and of course discrimination may also occur. However, the increase in age is a fact that people are born with. No one can change this fact through acquired efforts. The protected group in the category of age with a group of relative characteristics. Various aspects of age discrimination in employment may be involved in both single-ended elders and both elders and young people. This article compares the age discrimination law in the United States, which protects the single-ended middle and old age, with the Australian age discrimination law, which protects the older and young ends. Comparing the age discrimination law in the United States and Australian age discrimination law, the United States only protects middle-aged and senior-aged workers, and the exact age is used as a distinction for the protected group and the unprotected group. It is true that this kind of law shall not be ineffective in protecting workers at a younger age where the law may make younger workers be unduly discriminated and unable to be protected. However, its system is relatively certain regarding the establishment of the basis for determining age discrimination in employment.

1. Aida M. Alaka (2006) Corporate Reorganizations, Job Layoffs, And Age Discrimination: Has Smith v. City of Jackson Substantially Expanded the Rights Of Older Workers Under The ADEA? 70 Alb. L. Rev. 143.
2. Caren Sencer (2004). When a Boss Isn't an Employer: Limitations of Title VII Coverage 25 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 441-471.
3. John Macnicol (2006), Age Discrimination: A Historical and Contemporary Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. at 234 235.
4. Katherine Krupa Green (2004). COMMENT: A Reason to Discriminate: Curtailing the Use of Title VII Analysis in Claims Arising Under the ADEA, 65 La. L. Rev. 411.
5. Katherine Krupa Green (2004). COMMENT: A Reason to Discriminate: Curtailing the Use of Title VII Analysis in Claims Arising Under the ADEA, 65 La. L. Rev. 411.
6. Keith R. Fentonmiller (1998). The Continuing Validity of Disparate Impact Analysis for Federal-Sector Age Discrimination Claims, 47 Am. U.L. Rev. 1071.
7. Kenneth R. Davis (2004). Age Discrimination and Disparate Impact, 70 Brooklyn L. Rev. 361.
8. Laya Sleiman (2004). NOTE: A Duty to Make Reasonable Efforts and A Defense of the Disparate Impact Doctrine in Employment Discrimination Law, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 2678.
9. Mack A. Player (2004). Federal Law of Employment Discrimination in a Nutshell (4 ed., St. Paul, MN : Thomson) at 14.
10. Mitra Toossi (2005). Labor Force Projections to 2014: Retiring Boomers, 128(11) Monthly Lab. Rev. 25-26.
11. Tara-Ann Topputo (2003) Finding A Hole In the ADEA: Allowing A Cause of Action For Age Discrimination Among Employees Within The Age Protected Class 29 Dayton L. Rev. 172.
12. U.S. Dept. of Labor (1965), The Older American Worker: Age Discrimination in Employment. reprinted in the EEOC's Legislative History of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 16-41 (1981).
13. 謝棋楠(1997)，《中美工資工時法之適用與修正》，台南：漢家出版社。頁77-82。