NO DISCRIMINATION: Police officer Yeh Chi-yuan yesterday lost his lawsuit, in which he was demanding NT$500,000 in compensation and the removal of demerits for his long hair
The Taipei High Administrative Court yesterday ruled in favor of the National Police Agency (NPA) in a case where a police officer sued for sexual discrimination after being punished for having long hair.
Second Special Police Corps officer Yeh Chi-yuan (葉繼元) filed the lawsuit against the NPA after receiving 17 demerits on his record in 2015 for keeping his hair long, which caused him to receive a “C” grade on his annual performance evaluation that year.
Yeh said he was a victim of sexual discrimination, demanding the removal of the demerits and NT$500,000 in state compensation.
The court argued that the administration’s appearance requirements for officers was necessary to protect the “professional image of the force” and that the NPA was within its administrative rights to enforce such requirements.
The administration must consider public expectations for the force, presiding judge and court spokesman Hsu Jui-chu (許瑞助) said, adding that the NPA’s requirements did not violate laws protecting gender equality.
A subordinate’s performance evaluation is often based on an impression of that person over a long period, Hsu said.
Only in exceptional circumstances where the evaluation is suspected of being used for an abuse of power or other forms of illegal conduct could the court make changes to evaluation records, he said.
The panel of judges said that the police corps evaluated its officers’ performance based on their work, behavior, erudition and abilities.
A look at Yeh’s records shows a comprehensive score of 60, the panel said, adding that the administration’s evaluations of Yeh showed no evidence of violating the Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act (公務人員考績法).
The NPA instituted regulations governing officer appearance in 2003 to ensure that their appearance meets the public’s expectations of a law enforcement officer, the panel said, adding that the regulations were akin to rules for staff set by an employer.
The panel said the different requirements for male and female officers did not break the Gender Equality in Employment Act (性別工作平等法) and that they conformed with the main aims of the police force’s regulations governing officer appearance.
The NPA lists its core aims as maintaining “orderly deportment of officers, a tidy environment for internal affairs, protection of police equipment, good attitudes of officers while on duty, upright and disciplined police conduct, and a good public image of the administration and officers.”
Meanwhile, the aims of the Gender Equality in Employment Act are “to guarantee equal gender rights in the workforce, to carry out the constitutional [aim] of eliminating sexual discrimination and to promote the equal status of the genders,” the panel said.
Yeh expressed regret over the ruling, saying that he feels the judges did not carefully consider the intent of gender equality legislation.
He is planning to appeal the verdict following further research with his lawyer Kuo Te-tien (郭德田), he said.
[Taipei Times, 2017-10-27]
