June 2026
Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation Before Dismissal of an Employee with a Disability May Constitute Unlawful Termination (Taiwan)
I. Introduction
Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act (the “LSA”) provides that an employer may, upon advance notice, terminate an employee who is incompetent for the position held. The LSA does not, however, contain any specific provisions governing the termination of employees with disabilities. In recent judgments, courts have begun to scrutinize the legality of such terminations by reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the “CRPD”), holding that where an employee with a disability has requested reasonable accommodation and the employer fails to provide it before proceeding to terminate under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the LSA, the termination may constitute an abuse of rights and may therefore be deemed unlawful. (See 114-Lao-Su-17 Civil Judgment of the Taiwan Taipei District Court; 114-Lao-Su-51 Civil Judgment of the Taiwan Hsinchu District Court.) This article discusses the legal effect of the CRPD in Taiwan, the concept of reasonable accommodation, and key takeaways from the foregoing judgments.
II. The CRPD Has the Force of Law in Taiwan
The CRPD is one of the core human rights conventions of the United Nations. Taiwan enacted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Implementation Act (the "Implementation Act"), which took effect on August 20, 2014. Since that date, the CRPD has had the force of law in Taiwan. Articles 2 and 3 of the Implementation Act provide that the human rights protections set forth in the CRPD have legal effect, and that all laws and regulations applicable to persons with disabilities shall be interpreted in light of the purposes of the CRPD and the interpretations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the United Nations (the “CRPD Committee”).
III. The Concept of Reasonable Accommodation
Under Article 2 of the CRPD, reasonable accommodation refers to necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments, not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, made in response to the specific needs of a person with a disability. In General Comment No. 6 (the “General Comment”), the CRPD Committee identifies seven key elements for determining whether reasonable accommodation has been provided. As applied to employer obligations, these elements may be summarized as follows:
a. Dialogue with the employee. When an employee with a disability requests accommodation, the employer should first engage in dialogue with the employee to understand the employee’s circumstances and needs, and to ensure that the proposed accommodation would afford the employee opportunities and conditions equal to those of other employees.
b. Case-by-case assessment of feasibility and necessity. Although an employer has an obligation to provide accommodation, the proposed measures must be lawful, practically achievable, and necessary for the employee concerned. The accommodation should enable the employee to perform the functions of the position. After weighing the cost, time, and scale of resources available to the employer, the measures must not impose a disproportionate or undue burden on the employer.
c. Employer bears the cost and the burden of proof upon refusal. An employer may not shift the cost of providing reasonable accommodation to the employee; the employer must bear such costs. If, after assessment, the employer determines that providing the accommodation would impose a disproportionate or undue burden, the employer bears the burden of proving that this is the case.
In addition to the General Comment, Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor has issued administrative guidance on reasonable accommodation in the workplace, which may also serve as a reference for employers.
IV. Courts Hold That Employers Must Provide Reasonable Accommodation Before Dismissing Employees with Disabilities
In August 2024, the state-owned Taiwan Railways Corporation (“TRC”) terminated two employees with disabilities who had not passed their probationary period, citing incompetence under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the LSA. TRC maintained that it had made sufficient efforts to assist and guide the employees and had thus fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.
The courts disagreed. In both judgments, the courts held that after the employees had raised requests for reasonable accommodation, TRC failed to engage in adequate communication and dialogue with them and did not make sufficient efforts to provide appropriate accommodation. The terminations therefore constituted an abuse of rights and were not lawful. Both judgments emphasized that domestic law must be interpreted in conformity with the CRPD, which has the force of law in Taiwan, and that employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation as contemplated by the CRPD and the General Comment. Where such accommodation does not exceed the bounds of proportionality or impose an undue burden on the employer, a refusal to provide it without justification constitutes discrimination against the employee with a disability, in violation of Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Employment Service Act.
Accordingly, once an employee with a disability, or the employee’s primary caregiver, has raised a request for reasonable accommodation, the employer is obligated under the General Comment to engage in communication and dialogue with the employee, and to assess and make sufficient efforts to provide appropriate accommodation. An employer that fails to undertake these steps and proceeds directly to terminate the employee under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the LSA on the grounds of incompetence commits an abuse of rights, which cannot be considered lawful.
In light of these judgments, it is evident that courts have begun to apply the CRPD in evaluating the lawfulness of an employer’s termination of an employee with a disability. Employers are well advised to review their internal policies and procedures governing the management of employees with disabilities, and to ensure that, when such an employee raises a request for reasonable accommodation, the employer engages in genuine communication and dialogue and adopts corresponding measures to mitigate the risk of labor disputes.
Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act (the “LSA”) provides that an employer may, upon advance notice, terminate an employee who is incompetent for the position held. The LSA does not, however, contain any specific provisions governing the termination of employees with disabilities. In recent judgments, courts have begun to scrutinize the legality of such terminations by reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the “CRPD”), holding that where an employee with a disability has requested reasonable accommodation and the employer fails to provide it before proceeding to terminate under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the LSA, the termination may constitute an abuse of rights and may therefore be deemed unlawful. (See 114-Lao-Su-17 Civil Judgment of the Taiwan Taipei District Court; 114-Lao-Su-51 Civil Judgment of the Taiwan Hsinchu District Court.) This article discusses the legal effect of the CRPD in Taiwan, the concept of reasonable accommodation, and key takeaways from the foregoing judgments.
II. The CRPD Has the Force of Law in Taiwan
The CRPD is one of the core human rights conventions of the United Nations. Taiwan enacted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Implementation Act (the "Implementation Act"), which took effect on August 20, 2014. Since that date, the CRPD has had the force of law in Taiwan. Articles 2 and 3 of the Implementation Act provide that the human rights protections set forth in the CRPD have legal effect, and that all laws and regulations applicable to persons with disabilities shall be interpreted in light of the purposes of the CRPD and the interpretations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the United Nations (the “CRPD Committee”).
III. The Concept of Reasonable Accommodation
Under Article 2 of the CRPD, reasonable accommodation refers to necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments, not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, made in response to the specific needs of a person with a disability. In General Comment No. 6 (the “General Comment”), the CRPD Committee identifies seven key elements for determining whether reasonable accommodation has been provided. As applied to employer obligations, these elements may be summarized as follows:
a. Dialogue with the employee. When an employee with a disability requests accommodation, the employer should first engage in dialogue with the employee to understand the employee’s circumstances and needs, and to ensure that the proposed accommodation would afford the employee opportunities and conditions equal to those of other employees.
b. Case-by-case assessment of feasibility and necessity. Although an employer has an obligation to provide accommodation, the proposed measures must be lawful, practically achievable, and necessary for the employee concerned. The accommodation should enable the employee to perform the functions of the position. After weighing the cost, time, and scale of resources available to the employer, the measures must not impose a disproportionate or undue burden on the employer.
c. Employer bears the cost and the burden of proof upon refusal. An employer may not shift the cost of providing reasonable accommodation to the employee; the employer must bear such costs. If, after assessment, the employer determines that providing the accommodation would impose a disproportionate or undue burden, the employer bears the burden of proving that this is the case.
In addition to the General Comment, Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor has issued administrative guidance on reasonable accommodation in the workplace, which may also serve as a reference for employers.
IV. Courts Hold That Employers Must Provide Reasonable Accommodation Before Dismissing Employees with Disabilities
In August 2024, the state-owned Taiwan Railways Corporation (“TRC”) terminated two employees with disabilities who had not passed their probationary period, citing incompetence under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the LSA. TRC maintained that it had made sufficient efforts to assist and guide the employees and had thus fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.
The courts disagreed. In both judgments, the courts held that after the employees had raised requests for reasonable accommodation, TRC failed to engage in adequate communication and dialogue with them and did not make sufficient efforts to provide appropriate accommodation. The terminations therefore constituted an abuse of rights and were not lawful. Both judgments emphasized that domestic law must be interpreted in conformity with the CRPD, which has the force of law in Taiwan, and that employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation as contemplated by the CRPD and the General Comment. Where such accommodation does not exceed the bounds of proportionality or impose an undue burden on the employer, a refusal to provide it without justification constitutes discrimination against the employee with a disability, in violation of Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Employment Service Act.
Accordingly, once an employee with a disability, or the employee’s primary caregiver, has raised a request for reasonable accommodation, the employer is obligated under the General Comment to engage in communication and dialogue with the employee, and to assess and make sufficient efforts to provide appropriate accommodation. An employer that fails to undertake these steps and proceeds directly to terminate the employee under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the LSA on the grounds of incompetence commits an abuse of rights, which cannot be considered lawful.
In light of these judgments, it is evident that courts have begun to apply the CRPD in evaluating the lawfulness of an employer’s termination of an employee with a disability. Employers are well advised to review their internal policies and procedures governing the management of employees with disabilities, and to ensure that, when such an employee raises a request for reasonable accommodation, the employer engages in genuine communication and dialogue and adopts corresponding measures to mitigate the risk of labor disputes.
