Statement | Ruling on the Sexual Harassment Case Involving a Police Officer in Fengshan, Kaohsiung

Regarding the workplace sexual harassment incident involving the Fengshan Precinct of the Kaohsiung City Police Bureau, after the Supreme Administrative Court (Judgment 111-Pan-863) annulled the original judgment and remanded the case to the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court this April, the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court delivered its retrial judgment today: it annulled the Fengshan Precinct's decision that the sexual harassment allegation was unsubstantiated. In response, the JRF feels gratified and urges the Fengshan Precinct to prudently reconsider and issue a new decision on whether the sexual harassment occurred.

Supreme Administrative Court Annuls and Remands, JRF Continues to Monitor Gender Sensitivity in Judicial Sexual Harassment Cases

Female Police Officer F was subjected to repeated text message harassment via LINE and even sexual propositions during official duty by a male colleague, Police Officer Chia. After Police Officer F filed a sexual harassment grievance with the police bureau, the investigation committee concluded in both workplace and non-workplace contexts that Police Officer Chia had committed sexual harassment. However, the perpetrator filed for a re-examination, claiming that the police bureau's sexual harassment investigation procedure failed to comply with regulations, which subsequently led the Civil Service Protection and Training Commission to annul the original decision. Afterwards, the precinct formed a new investigation committee and, upon re-deliberation, unexpectedly concluded that the sexual harassment was unsubstantiated. Subsequently, due to procedural distinctions, the case was severed into workplace and non-workplace incidents, and Police Officer F filed administrative lawsuits with the court pursuant to the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act and the Act for Gender Equality in Employment, respectively.

In particular, regarding the part concerning the Act for Gender Equality in Employment involved in today's ruling, the first-instance judgment of the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court merely because the perpetrator mentioned "Yuhsu" (the name of a motel) and "going to your place to find you" concluded that Police Officer F and the perpetrator "still exchanged messages," thereby determining that the Fengshan Precinct's disposition finding the sexual harassment unsubstantiated was "not without basis." Police Officer F found this unacceptable, believing that the judgment imposed excessively harsh demands on the victim of sexual harassment, and thus appealed. The JRF submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Administrative Court, hoping that during the adjudication, the court would not negate the immediate experience of sexual harassment based on the victim's subsequent interactions with the perpetrator, thereby falling into the myth of the "perfect victim." Fortunately, this April's annulment and remand judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court required the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court to examine the testimony and relevant screenshot evidence favorable to Police Officer F. Concerned with the issue of gender sensitivity within the judicial system, the JRF has continuously followed the case since Police Officer F appealed the Act for Gender Equality in Employment case to the Supreme Administrative Court, and retained volunteer lawyer Liu Yen-t'ien to provide pro bono representation and assistance. Following half a year of deliberation, the case was decided today.

Difficult Plight of Sexual Harassment Victims in the Police Force; Landmark Case Expected to Promote Gender-Friendly Systems

Paragraph 15 of General Recommendation No. 33 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) requires States to "enhance the gender sensitivity of the judicial system." The target of "gender sensitivity" refers to male experiences or value judgment standards regarded as routine and normal; if the judiciary continues to apply these standards, it is tantamount to inflicting secondary victimization on those seeking help.

If women are in a hostile work environment involving sexual harassment, or are constrained by the atmosphere and reality of being a minority with insufficient support in the workplace, it is truly difficult to demand that they immediately adopt a firm stance or drastic reaction when facing sexual harassment. Due to the special nature of police work and long-standing historical factors, the proportion of female police officers in Police Officer F's work environment is extremely low. At the time of the incident, Police Officer F's unit had 50 male police officers and only 3 female officers, presenting a stark gender imbalance. Moreover, female police officers had to be paired with male police officers when performing duties outside, leading to frequent subsequent work contact with the perpetrator. In other words, her work environment inherently possessed a special culture and pressure, with realistic factors forcing Police Officer F to compromise and endure. Such workplace culture truly warrants special consideration, review, and improvement.

Since filing the sexual harassment grievance, Police Officer F has continued to strive persistently to this day in pursuit of judicial justice, not only for her own case but also in the hope of prompting the police force to squarely address the propriety of sexual harassment prevention and handling mechanisms and to implement gender-friendly measures. Today's ruling merely annuls the original decision that the sexual harassment was unsubstantiated and is not the end of the relief procedure. Police Officer F and her retained counsel will thoroughly discuss the matter upon receiving the judgment and continue to work hard. They also call upon the Fengshan Precinct to fully comprehend the intent of the judgment, prudently re-issue a decision on the sexual harassment, and strengthen internal gender equality education to prevent similar incidents from recurring.

• Judgment of this Case

Press Contact

Li Ming-ju, Deputy CEO, Judicial Reform Foundation
mj@jrf.org.tw
(02)25231178 #17