The Supreme Administrative Court held that Xie Nan was a university graduate and should have known that employers were not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, and dismissed his case, confirming the case.
[Reporter Wu Zhengfeng/Taipei Report] A Kaohsiung coffee shop with a capital of 100,000 yuan, in 2021, marked "female only" in the recruitment advertisement. The Kaohsiung City Government found that it violated the "Gender Equality Work Law" and offered 300,000 yuan fine.
The boss surnamed Xie couldn't bear the high fine, and he filed a lawsuit to resist the punishment, claiming that he didn't know that this move was illegal and that the penalty violated the principle of proportionality.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that Xie Nan was a university graduate and should have known that employers were not allowed to discriminate based on gender, and dismissed his lawsuit a few days ago, confirming the entire case.
In March 2021, the Kaohsiung City Government Labor Bureau received a report from the public that the coffee shop run by Xie Nan posted a recruitment advertisement with the words "Wanted for work partners (female only)", violating the Gender Equality Work Law.
Inspectors went to the site to check and determined that there was a violation of the law, and submitted it to the Kaohsiung City Employment Discrimination Council for deliberation.
After a resolution, the gender discrimination in this case was established. The city government confirmed that Xie Nan violated the law and the facts were clear, issued a fine of 300,000 yuan, and announced Xie Nan's name.
Please read on...
He was fined 300,000 yuan for three words. Xie Nan was frightened and started a lawsuit to resist the punishment. He advocated other similar sexual equality cases. The sanctioning agency should balance the business scale and resources of the person to be punished, and check that the degree of censure he should be blamed is not significant. However, citing Article 8 of the Administrative Penalty Law to mitigate the punishment, he is a small businessman and does not understand legal norms. Even if 300,000 yuan is the minimum threshold, it still imposes a serious burden on him and violates the principle of proportionality.
Xie Nan emphasized that since he did not attend the seminars and trainings related to the opening of the business, he had no way of knowing that it was illegal to publish a recruitment advertisement for "female only". And the impact is minor, it should comply with the provisions for mitigating punishment
The Supreme Administrative Court stated that Article 8 of the Administrative Penalty Law stipulates that the reduction or exemption of punishment shall be based on the premise that the perpetrator "does not know the existence of regulations", that is, does not know whether his behavior is prohibited by regulations (not to do) or commandments (required to do) and It can only be applied if there is a lack of awareness of illegality.
The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Gender Equality Work Law and the Gender Equality Education Law have been implemented for many years, and have been vigorously promoted by government agencies, school units and the public. The laborer has sex-discriminatory behavior and should have the knowledge of illegality. His behavior does not meet the requirements for mitigating punishment. His lawsuit was dismissed a few days ago and the whole case was confirmed.