employer has violated the provisions of Articles 7 to 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Article 21, or Article 36, they may file a complaint with the local competent authority.” b. Agencies’ failure to determine discrimination based on CEDAW’s definition of discrimination The Taoyuan City Government and Ministry of Labor ruled that EVA Air’s uniform, high heel, makeup, and self-purchased shoe allowance regulations do not constitute gender discrimination. Regarding makeup, the Taoyuan City Government Gender Equality Committee accepted EVA Air’s explanations that it provided makeup tutorials for both its male and female cabin crew, and cited Article 13 of its “Cabin Crew Management Regulations,” which states: “Cabin crew must wear appropriate makeup when on duty.” EVA Air stressed that it did not specifically require only women to wear makeup, demonstrating the absence of gender-based differential treatment. The approval letter of the Gender Equality Committee, Ministry of Labor also supported the latter explanation. However, according to the NHRC’s interview with the complainant, EVA Air previously employed only female cabin crew, so the term “cabin crew” in the “Cabin Crew Management Regulations” clearly refers to female cabin crew. It was only in recent years that EVA Air began recruiting male cabin crew, resulting in the addition of specific “male cabin crew” provisions, as can be seen when comparing Articles 14 and 15 of the management regulations. Regarding dresses, the approval letter indicated that EVA Air did not discriminate based on gender. However, whether an action is judged as discriminatory against women should be based on its adverse impact on women, without the need to prove discriminatory intent. In fact, any requirement to prove discriminatory intent should be avoided because people who embrace stereotypes may engage in discriminatory behavior without “realizing that they embrace stereotypes, resulting in a reaction of anger, shock, or confusion when they are accused of gender 75