May 27, 2026
The Ministry of Labor Amends the Enforcement Rules of the Gender Equality in Employment Act: Clarifying the Scope of “Highest-Ranking Official” (Taiwan)
To strengthen workplace sexual harassment prevention mechanisms and clarify the standards for determining the “highest-ranking official” under Article 12, Paragraph 8, Subparagraph 2 of the Gender Equality in Employment Act (the“GEEA”), the Ministry of Labor amended and promulgated Article 4-2 of the Enforcement Rules of Gender Equality in Employment Act (the “Enforcement Rules”) on April 8, 2026. The amendment expressly defines the scope of enterprises’“external representative” and “individuals holding positions equivalent to such representative” in order to assist local competent authorities in establishing clearer standards for determination. The key points of the amendment are summarized as follows.
I. Special Complaint Procedures and Administrative Liability Applicable to the “Highest-Ranking Official”
As the “highest-ranking official” generally possesses substantial authority and practical influence within an organization, the GEEA provides for special remedial procedures where the “highest-ranking official” is the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment. Employees or job applicants who experience sexual harassment by the “highest-ranking official” may directly file a complaint with the local competent authority without first undergoing the company’s internal complaint procedures (Article 32-1, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the GEEA). During the investigation by the competent authority, the complainant may also apply for adjustments to job duties or work arrangements, and the employer may not refuse such request (Article 32-2, Paragraph 5 of the GEEA). In addition, where the “highest-ranking official” is determined by the local competent authority to have engaged in sexual harassment, such individual may be subject to an administrative fine ranging from NT$10,000 to NT$1,000,000 (Article 38-2, Paragraph 1 of the GEEA).
Accordingly, the scope of the “highest-ranking official” directly affects whether employees or job applicants may utilize the special complaint mechanism of directly filing complaints with the local competent authority, as well as the administrative liabilities imposed on perpetrators of sexual harassment.
II.“External Representative”: Determined Based on Registered Business Representative
The “highest-ranking official” includes the external representative of a legal person, partnership, non-legal person group with representatives or managers, and other organizations (first half of Article 12, Paragraph 8, Subparagraph 2 of the GEEA).
The current amendment to the Enforcement Rules incorporates both formal and substantive considerations in determining the foregoing “external representative.” Specifically, it provides that the determination shall be based on the external representative recorded in company registration, business registration, limited partnership registration, foundation registration, or other relevant establishment documents issued in accordance with law. On the other hand, the scope also includes external representatives of enterprises that are legally required to register but have failed to complete such registration procedures (Article 4-2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules), thereby preventing certain organizations from evading liability by failing to complete registration formalities.
III.“Individuals Holding Positions Equivalent to Such Representative”: Scope and Six Applicable Categories of Individuals Who Substantively Execute Business Operations or Control Personnel, Financial, or Operational Matters
In addition to an enterprise’s external representative, the “highest-ranking official” also includes “individuals holding positions equivalent to such representative” (second half of Article 12, Paragraph 8, Subparagraph 2 of the GEEA).
To avoid situations where the internal investigation process may not remain objective and impartial because the actual controller of the enterprise is the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment, the amended Enforcement Rules expressly provide that any individual who substantively executes the representative’s business operations or substantively controls the organization’s personnel, finances, or business operations, and who falls within any of the following categories, may be determined by the local competent authority to constitute an “individual holding a position equivalent to such representative” (Article 4-2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rules):
1. A current or former director (or board member) or supervisor (or auditor);
2. A person holding more than twenty percent of the shares;
3. A person identified by a labor union, shareholders, contractors, or the complainant in a sexual harassment case as holding a position equivalent to the representative, supported by concrete evidence;
4. The representative’s spouse, former spouse, blood relative within the fourth degree of kinship, spouse of a blood relative within the third degree of kinship, blood relative within the third degree of kinship of the spouse, or the spouse thereof;
5. A representative who has been re-elected but whose registration has not yet been completed; or
6. A person occupying a particularly significant position (for example, a “President” with ultimate decision-making authority [1] ).
The current amendment to the Enforcement Rules has clarified that the scope of the “highest-ranking official” is not limited to the responsible person recorded in company registration documents. It may also include external representatives of enterprises that are legally required to register but have failed to do so, as well as individuals who in practice exercise control over the company’s operations, decision-making, or personnel management, thereby triggering the application of special complaint procedures and administrative liabilities.
We recommend that enterprises, in addition to continuing to establish and implement workplace sexual harassment prevention mechanisms, also review their actual management structures and allocation of decision-making authority in order to assess whether relevant personnel may, following the amendment to the Enforcement Rules, be deemed “highest-ranking officials.” Enterprises should also evaluate whether they have implemented the complainant protection measures required under the amendment when handling relevant complaints, so as to mitigate legal risks and disputes arising from workplace sexual harassment incidents.
[1] Comparison Table for Amendments to Articles 4-2 and 4-3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Gender Equality in Employment Act. (April 8, 2026). Ministry of Labor. https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawGetFile.ashx?FileId=0000415644&lan=C&type=1&date=20260408 (Last accessed: May 17, 2026).
I. Special Complaint Procedures and Administrative Liability Applicable to the “Highest-Ranking Official”
As the “highest-ranking official” generally possesses substantial authority and practical influence within an organization, the GEEA provides for special remedial procedures where the “highest-ranking official” is the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment. Employees or job applicants who experience sexual harassment by the “highest-ranking official” may directly file a complaint with the local competent authority without first undergoing the company’s internal complaint procedures (Article 32-1, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the GEEA). During the investigation by the competent authority, the complainant may also apply for adjustments to job duties or work arrangements, and the employer may not refuse such request (Article 32-2, Paragraph 5 of the GEEA). In addition, where the “highest-ranking official” is determined by the local competent authority to have engaged in sexual harassment, such individual may be subject to an administrative fine ranging from NT$10,000 to NT$1,000,000 (Article 38-2, Paragraph 1 of the GEEA).
Accordingly, the scope of the “highest-ranking official” directly affects whether employees or job applicants may utilize the special complaint mechanism of directly filing complaints with the local competent authority, as well as the administrative liabilities imposed on perpetrators of sexual harassment.
II.“External Representative”: Determined Based on Registered Business Representative
The “highest-ranking official” includes the external representative of a legal person, partnership, non-legal person group with representatives or managers, and other organizations (first half of Article 12, Paragraph 8, Subparagraph 2 of the GEEA).
The current amendment to the Enforcement Rules incorporates both formal and substantive considerations in determining the foregoing “external representative.” Specifically, it provides that the determination shall be based on the external representative recorded in company registration, business registration, limited partnership registration, foundation registration, or other relevant establishment documents issued in accordance with law. On the other hand, the scope also includes external representatives of enterprises that are legally required to register but have failed to complete such registration procedures (Article 4-2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules), thereby preventing certain organizations from evading liability by failing to complete registration formalities.
III.“Individuals Holding Positions Equivalent to Such Representative”: Scope and Six Applicable Categories of Individuals Who Substantively Execute Business Operations or Control Personnel, Financial, or Operational Matters
In addition to an enterprise’s external representative, the “highest-ranking official” also includes “individuals holding positions equivalent to such representative” (second half of Article 12, Paragraph 8, Subparagraph 2 of the GEEA).
To avoid situations where the internal investigation process may not remain objective and impartial because the actual controller of the enterprise is the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment, the amended Enforcement Rules expressly provide that any individual who substantively executes the representative’s business operations or substantively controls the organization’s personnel, finances, or business operations, and who falls within any of the following categories, may be determined by the local competent authority to constitute an “individual holding a position equivalent to such representative” (Article 4-2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rules):
1. A current or former director (or board member) or supervisor (or auditor);
2. A person holding more than twenty percent of the shares;
3. A person identified by a labor union, shareholders, contractors, or the complainant in a sexual harassment case as holding a position equivalent to the representative, supported by concrete evidence;
4. The representative’s spouse, former spouse, blood relative within the fourth degree of kinship, spouse of a blood relative within the third degree of kinship, blood relative within the third degree of kinship of the spouse, or the spouse thereof;
5. A representative who has been re-elected but whose registration has not yet been completed; or
6. A person occupying a particularly significant position (for example, a “President” with ultimate decision-making authority [1] ).
The current amendment to the Enforcement Rules has clarified that the scope of the “highest-ranking official” is not limited to the responsible person recorded in company registration documents. It may also include external representatives of enterprises that are legally required to register but have failed to do so, as well as individuals who in practice exercise control over the company’s operations, decision-making, or personnel management, thereby triggering the application of special complaint procedures and administrative liabilities.
We recommend that enterprises, in addition to continuing to establish and implement workplace sexual harassment prevention mechanisms, also review their actual management structures and allocation of decision-making authority in order to assess whether relevant personnel may, following the amendment to the Enforcement Rules, be deemed “highest-ranking officials.” Enterprises should also evaluate whether they have implemented the complainant protection measures required under the amendment when handling relevant complaints, so as to mitigate legal risks and disputes arising from workplace sexual harassment incidents.
[1] Comparison Table for Amendments to Articles 4-2 and 4-3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Gender Equality in Employment Act. (April 8, 2026). Ministry of Labor. https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawGetFile.ashx?FileId=0000415644&lan=C&type=1&date=20260408 (Last accessed: May 17, 2026).
