本文關(guān)鍵詞： 雇主歧視性報復 雇員行為 雇主行為 因果關(guān)系 救濟　出處：《上海交通大學》2008年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】： 雇主因為雇員反對雇主違法行為或者指控、作證、協(xié)助、以任何方式參與《民權(quán)法案》所規(guī)定的調(diào)查、訴訟、聽證等參加行為而對其實施不利行為的,構(gòu)成歧視性報復,以《民權(quán)法案》為代表,雇主歧視性報復在美國有著完整的法律規(guī)制體系。其保護范圍包括前雇員在內(nèi)的所有雇員,當其因為反對雇主的違法行為或參加法律規(guī)定的調(diào)查、訴訟、聽證行為而受到雇主歧視性報復時,將會得到來自如EEOC等行政組織的全面保護以及在司法程序中的側(cè)重保護,尤其是舉證責任的分配。雇員如果能證明其主張成立,可以要求復職,獲得賠償金、訴訟費用等。 雇主歧視性報復案件在我國亦普遍存在,但在立法上沒有明確規(guī)定其性質(zhì),現(xiàn)行行政處理模式忽視了雇員的權(quán)利,司法救濟制度不健全,完全采用民事訴訟程序處理事實上不平等主體間的糾紛。由此造成對雇員平等權(quán)和勞動權(quán)的侵犯。我們可以在法律中將其明確為獨立歧視;明確雇員檢舉、控告雇主違法行為或者為他人作證、主張權(quán)利等行為受法律保護;無正當理由的雇主行為是法律禁止的雇主報復。在法律空白期可以援引憲法的平等權(quán)和勞動權(quán)來解決此類糾紛。
[Abstract]:The employer because of their illegal acts or charges against the employer, to assist in the investigation, ", stipulated in the bill of rights" in any way to participate in the hearing proceedings, and on the implementation of negative behaviors, a discriminatory retaliation to the civil rights act as the representative of < >, employer discrimination retaliation has a complete system of legal regulation in the United States. The scope of protection of all employees including former employees, because when the investigation, illegal acts against the employer or in legal proceedings, the hearings by the employer discrimination retaliation, will be fully protected from EEOC such as administrative organization and in judicial proceedings focus on protection, especially the allocation of the burden of proof. If the employee can prove that the master Zhang founded, can request reinstatement, get compensation, the cost of litigation.
Employer discrimination retaliation cases also exist in our country, but the legislation does not specify the nature of the current administrative processing model ignores the rights of employees, the judicial relief system is not perfect, complete with the civil procedure inequality in fact disputes among the subjects. The resulting violations of employees equal rights and labor rights we can. In law, it clearly is independent of discrimination; clear employees report, accused of illegal acts or the employer for others to claim such acts are protected by law; the employer justification is prohibited by law in the legal blank period of revenge. The employer can invoke the constitutional equality rights and labor rights to resolve such disputes.

【學位授予單位】：上海交通大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2008
【分類號】：D922.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 張千帆;論憲法效力的界定及其對私法的影響[J];比較法研究;2004年02期

2 焦洪昌;賈志剛;;基本權(quán)利對第三人效力之理論與實踐——兼論該理論對我國憲法司法化的指導意義[J];廈門大學法律評論;2003年01期

3 周偉;;中華人民共和國反歧視法學術(shù)建議稿[J];河北法學;2007年06期

4 張瑋;就業(yè)歧視:人才不能承受之重[J];才智(人事人才);2004年08期

5 喻術(shù)紅;反就業(yè)歧視法律問題之比較研究[J];中國法學;2005年01期

，

本文編號：1519211