earticle

영어

This paper shows that although the Equal Employment Act was established for 30 years since the enactment of the 1987 Act, many provisions of the Sex Discrimination in Employment Act(SDEA) have not been applied to the development of interpretation. First, in the case of the prohibition of direct discrimination, there is no case law on the justification of different treatment. In the case of the prohibition of indirect discrimination, there is virtually no case where it is applied, and it is meaningless to discuss the case law. The prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace is also insufficient to discuss the development of judicial jurisprudence with respect to the meaning of “sexual harassment in the workplace” under the SDEA. In this situation, the interest in the SDEA lies more in the way of making it more effective than it is now. However, this paper also identifies fundamental problems that require further consideration. It is ‘indirect discrimination’, ‘equal pay for equal labor value’ and ‘transfer of burden of proof’. They have been introduced into the SDEA at a relatively early stage, but have little effect as originally intended. According to the most recent OECD statistics, the wage gap of women compared to men in Korea is the highest among OECD countries, and this ratio is not much different from that of the early 2000s. In such a situation, it is a big problem that the important provisions of the Equal Employment Act are not functioning in court judgments. In the future, it should be carefully scrutinized Whether these problems are caused by the passivity of the government or the court that enforces and interprets the law, or whether the provision itself is made without considering the characteristics of the law considering the reality of the law in Korea.