their performance evaluations, that no female cabin crew had expressed the need to wear trousers in past discussions, that dress codes were in place for both male and female cabin crew, and that there were no rules prohibiting male cabin crew from wearing makeup. The Taiwanese airlines consistently claimed that their differential treatment of cabin crew is not based on gender, but they did not clarify whether the differential treatment fell under the exceptions category (i.e., the so-called “bona fide occupational qualifications”). c. Differential treatment in terms of welfare measures Uniform and footwear requirements may also constitute differential treatment in terms of welfare measures. Article 9 of the Gender Equality in Employment Act stipulates that “Employers shall not discriminate against employees because of their gender or sexual orientation in the case of holding or providing various welfare measures.” The Ministry of Labor has previously provided an explanation regarding uniform costs. The administrative letter stated that “Uniforms are required by employers to run their businesses, and employees are compelled to wear them at workplaces or when providing service for reasons of workplace safety or labor discipline. The costs should be included as a part of the labor costs or employee benefits.”46 Therefore, the uniforms and the purchase allowances for shoes and stockings provided by some of the airlines are considered employee welfare items and should not be subject to gender-based differential treatment. a) The requirements for cabin crew’s uniforms—trousers for males and skirts for females—indeed create a differentiation based on gender stereotypes, and are both an adverse cause and consequence of gender stereotyping. They reinforce gender stereotypes and 46 The Council of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan Tai-Lao-Zi-Er-Zi letter No. 0043550 released on October 16, 2000. 58