prevent individuals with different gender identities from choosing uniforms that align with their gender identities. b) Regarding footwear allowances, the original self-purchase rule of one airline company was two pairs of dress shoes per year, with male cabin crew receiving NT$2,500 per pair of shoes and their female counterparts receiving NT$1,650 per pair of shoes. The airline’s reasoning was that men’s shoes are generally more expensive, hence the larger allowance. After union complaints, an equal allowance was granted to employees of both genders: NT$2,500 for one pair and NT$3,300 for two pairs of shoes (an average of NT$1,650 TWD per pair). However, this meant that male cabin crew could choose to buy only one pair (and receive a subsidy of NT$2,500), whereas female cabin crew, who had to wear high heels when working outside the cabin and who preferred to wear flats when working inside the cabin, had to buy two pairs (and receive a subsidy of NT$3,300). d. Domestic and International Cases As previously mentioned, the data compiled by the Civil Aviation Administration reveals that approximately 40% of airlines in the Asian region and nearly 100% of airlines in the European, American, New Zealand, and Australian regions offer both skirt and trouser uniforms. Nonetheless, there remain numerous dress code-related complaints and investigations worldwide, including the aforementioned NHRCK’s female cabin crew uniform complaint case as well as the following cases: a) Alaska Airlines Investigation, Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Washington State ACLU assisted non-binary gender-identifying cabin crew in filing a complaint with the WSHRC against Alaska Airlines for its strict binary gender dress code, which violated state laws. In 2022, WSHRC’s investigation revealed that Alaska Airlines’ dress code policy, which required an employee to wear a uniform that did not match their gender expression or identity, was in violation of the state’s 59