본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

장애인에 대한 합리적 편의제공 의무 분석: OECD 국가에 대한 비교법 연구

Analyzing the Reasonable Accommodation Duty: A Comparative Law Study of OECD Countries

오욱찬
한국장애인복지학회 (Korea Academy of Disability and Welfare)|2016.07|한국장애인복지학 (Journal of Disability and Welfare)|제32권 제32호|pp. 245-274|DOI 10.22779/kadw.2016.32.32.245

0

조회

0

다운로드

11

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

비교법장애disability차별금지법comparative law합리적 편의제공 의무anti-discrimination lawreasonable accommodation duty

초록

본 연구는 OECD 국가의 차별금지법을 대상으로 고용 영역에 적용되는 장애인에 대한 합리적 편의제공 의무를 비교법 연구로 분석하였다. 여기에는 의무의 강도를 판단할 수 있는 네 가지의 분석기준이 적용되었다. 1) 합리적 편의제공 의무 불이행을 차별행위로 간주하는가? 2) 합리적 편의의 내용이 한정적인가 혹은개방적인가? 3) ‘합리성’이라는 용어의 의미에 ‘직무수행 효과성’의 의미가 포함되는가? 4) ‘불균등한 부담’ 항변 요소에 합리적 편의제공에 대한 공적 지원을고려해야 한다는 조건이 있는가? 분석 결과, 네 가지 기준을 모두 충족하여 합리적 편의제공 의무의 강도가 가장 높은 국가는 호주, 오스트리아, 벨기에, 체코, 덴마크, 프랑스, 그리스, 아일랜드, 네덜란드, 노르웨이, 슬로바키아, 스페인, 영국이었다. 반면 헝가리, 이탈리아, 뉴질랜드, 한국의 의무는 취약한 것으로 판단된다. 분석 결과를 바탕으로 한국의 ‘정당한 편의제공’ 의무에 대한 개선방향을제시하였다.

Abstract

This study analyzes the level of reasonable accommodation duty in disability anti-discrimination laws of OECD countries using the comparative law method. The level of duty to provide reasonable accommodations was measured by four indicators drawn from the relevant theories. A disability anti-discrimination law is regarded as having a high level of duty when a) an unjustified failure or refusal to make a reasonable accommodation is regarded as a form of discrimination; b) the law provides a inclusive definition of reasonable accommodation or illustrative examples, but not exhaustive examples; c) the concept of ‘reasonableness’ contains the meaning of ‘effectiveness’ of the accommodation; and d) the law provides that the availability of public funds should be taken into account when determining whether making an accommodation would amount to a disproportionate burden. According to these standards, Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom meet all standards, while the laws of Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, and South Korea provided a very low level of duty.

참고문헌 (48)

  1. 장애인차별금지법 단계적 이행기관에 대한 이행상황 실태조사: 문화․예술․체육활동을 중심으로, "박종운", 국가인권위원회, ~ (2010)
  2. 심재진, "장애인차별금지와 정당한 편의제공의무 -대전지방법원 2012.2.15. 선고 2011가소122610 판결-", 사회보장연구, 29(1), pp.105~133 (2013), 한국사회보장학회
  3. 심재진, "영국과 미국의 장애인차별금지법제와 장애인사회보장법제의 관계― 고용상의 합리적 편의제공의무와 국가의 장애인고용지원을 중심으로 ―", 노동법학, (52), pp.255~295 (2014), 한국노동법학회
  4. 오욱찬, "장애차별금지법의 고용효과에 대한 비교연구: 장애 정의와 합리적 편의제공의무의 역할을 중심으로", 박사, 사회복지학과, pp.2016
  5. 조임영, "장애인 고용차별금지 법제의 운용사례에 관한 국제비교 ― 합리적 편의제공 의무를 중심으로 ―", 노동법학, (35), pp.293~337 (2010), 한국노동법학회
  6. 최승철, "정당한 편의’ 개념에 관한 연구", 장애인복지연구, 1(3), pp.65~91 (2010)
  7. Atkins, C. G. K, "A cripple at a rich man's gate: A comparison of disability, employment and anti-discrimination law in the United States and Canada", Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 21(2), pp.87~111 (2006)
  9. Bagenstos, S. R., "Comparative disability employment law from an American perspective", Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 24(4), pp.649~667 (2003)
  10. Barnard, C, "Substantive equality", Cambridge Law Journal, 59(3), pp.562~585 (2000)
  11. Bribosia, E., "Reasonable accommodation beyond disability in Europe?" (2013), Office for Official Publications of the European Union
  12. Burgdorf, Jr. R. L., "“Substantially limited” protection from disability discrimination: The special treatment model and misconstructions of the definition of disability", Villanova Law Review, 42(2), pp.409~586 (1997)
  13. Country report on measures to combat discrimination: Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Cachón, L, European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  15. Chodosh, H. E, "Comparing comparisons: In search of methodology", Iowa Law Review, 84(5), pp.1025~1132 (1999)
  16. Chopin, I., "Developing anti-discrimination law in Europe: The 28 EU member states, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey compared" (2014), Publications Office of the European Union
  17. ., "United Nations", 2014
  18. De Schutter, O, "Disability rights in Europe: From theory to practice" (2005), Hart Publishing
  19. 43, "Beyond formal equality: Positive action under Directive 2000", pp.EC, EC and 2000
  20. Diller, M., "Judicial backlash, the ADA, and the civil rights model", Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 21(1), pp.19~52 (2000)
  21. Doyle, B., "Enabling legislation or dissembling law? The Disability Discrimination Act 1995", The Modern Law Review, 60(1), pp.64~78 (1997)
  22. The Stationery Office, ".", 2011
  23. Hahn, H., "Accommodations and the ADA: Unreasonable bias or biased reasoning", Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 21(1), pp.166~192 (2000)
  24. Heyer, K. C, "The ADA on the road: Disability rights in Germany", Law & Social Inquiry, 27(4), pp.723~762 (2002)
  25. Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Holtmaat, R., European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  26. Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Justesen, P, European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  27. Karlan, P. S., "Disabilities, discrimination, and reasonable accommodation", Duke Law Journal, 46(1), pp.1~41 (1996)
  28. Kozyris, P. J, "Comparative law for the twenty-first century: New horizons and new technologies", Tulane Law Review, 69(1), pp.165~180 (1995)
  29. Lawson, A., "Disability and equality law in Britain: The role of reasonable adjustment" (2008), Hart Publishing
  30. Lawson, A, "Reasonable accommodation and accessibility obligations: Towards a more unified European approach?", European Anti-Discrimination Law Review, 11, pp.11~21 (2010)
  31. Germany 2013: Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Mahlmann, M., European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  32. Sweden 2013: Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Norberg, P., European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  33. Ireland 2013: Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.O’Farrell, O., European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  34. Palmer, V. V, "From Lerotholi to Lando: Some examples of comparative law methodology", The American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(1), pp.261~290 (2005)
  35. Quinn, G., "Equality law in an enlarged European Union: Understanding the Article 13 Directives" (2007), Cambridge University Press
  36. Reimann, M, "The progress and failure of comparative law in the second half of the twentieth century", The American Journal of Comparative Law, 50(4), pp.671~700 (2002)
  37. Reitz, J. C, "How to do comparative law", The American Journal of Comparative Law, 46(4), pp.617~636 (1998)
  38. Sacco, R, "Legal formants: A dynamic approach to comparative law", The American Journal of Comparative Law, 39(1), pp.1~34 (1991)
  39. Austria 2013: Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Schindlauer, D., European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  40. Schwab, S. J., "Reasonable accommodation of workplace disabilities", William & Mary Law Review, 44(3), pp.1197~1284 (2003)
  41. Greece 2013: Country report on measures to combat discrimination:Directives 2000, "43", EC and 2000, EC, pp.Theodoridis, A., European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field[DOI]
  42. Tobler, C., "Limits and potential of the concept of indirect discrimination" (2008), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
  43. Implementing and interpreting the reasonable accommodation provision of the Framework Employment Directive: Learning from experience and achieving best practice, "Waddington, L.", EU Network of Experts on Disability Discrimination, ~ (2004)
  44. Waddington, L., "Disability rights in Europe: From theory to practice" (2005), Hart Publishing
  45. Waddington, L, "When it is reasonable for Europeans to be confused: Understanding when a disability accommodation is “reasonable” from a comparative perspective", Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 29(3), pp.317~340 (2008)
  46. Waddington, L., "Disability rights law and policy:International and national perspectives" (2002), Transnational Publishers
  47. Waddington, L., "The expanding concept of employment discrimination in Europe: From direct and indirect discrimination to reasonable accommodation discrimination", International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 18(4), pp.403~428 (2002)
  48. Waddington, L., "Disability and non-discrimination law in the European Union: An analysis of disability discrimination law within and beyond the employment field" (2009), Publications Office of the European Union

관련 논문AI추천

장애에 관한 차별금지법 국제비교주영하한국디지털정책학회 · 디지털융복합연구2021 · 제19권 제12호장애인의 접근성 보장을 위한 법적 과제 : 정당한 편의제공 의무 국내 사례 현황 분석을 중심으로강지선, 배유진, 이경은, 하민정법과정책연구원 · 법과정책2024 · 제30권 제3호장애인에 대한 면직처분의 정당성과 사용자의 편의제공의무이수연한국사회법학회 · 사회법연구2013 · 제20호장애인차별금지법상 ‘정당한 편의 제공’의 범위: 장애인 객실에 대한 장애인 우선예약 의무를 중심으로이주헌한국인권학회 · 인권연구2025 · 제8권 제2호유엔 장애인권리협약의 접근권 개념과 개별 국가의 사례: 반차별권(합리적 편의제공 의무)과의 관계를 중심으로서정희, 심재진, 오욱찬한국장애인복지학회 · 한국장애인복지학2018 · 제40권 제40호장애인차별금지법의 실효성 확보를 위한 과제 - 정당한 편의제공과 권리구제절차를 중심으로 -위계출한국장애인복지학회 · 한국장애인복지학2011 · 제16호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

성인 발달장애인의 평생과정설계를 위한 준비프로그램 효과성 연구유수진pp. 5-34장애인부모단체 회원의 가족건강성 영향 요인: 동료지지와 단체만족도를 중심으로이강훈pp. 35-62장애인 평생교육에 대한 발달장애인 부모들의 메타포(metaphor) 의미 분석김두영, 박미진pp. 63-82청각장애인에 대한 고용주의 인식이 고용의사에 미치는 영향 - 충남지역 고용가능 사업장을 중심으로이정랑, 최인덕pp. 87-114재가중증장애인의 장애정체감과 자립생활의 관계에서 임파워먼트의 매개효과: 지체 및 뇌병변 장애를 중심으로나동석, 김영대pp. 115-139
원문 보기