indeed have differing dress codes for male and female cabin crew. In particular, female cabin crew are subject to highly specific requirements regarding hair and makeup. Whether airlines enforce such gender stereotype-reinforcing dress codes through performance reviews, disciplinary actions, or dress code compliance checks, it is apparent that female cabin crew are at a comparative disadvantage. In addition, female cabin crew undertake safety training in trousers but lack emergency response training in their uniform skirts and shoes, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, wearing stockings, which are highly flammable, poses a serious fire hazard, limits cabin crew’s mobility, and increases the likelihood of sexual harassment. Without a feasible explanation as to the necessity of the differential treatment, domestic airline companies are putting female cabin crew at risk by failing to consider the occupational safety and health risks presented by the dress code from a gender equality perspective. The NHRC also found that the competent authority had failed to comply with CEDAW’s definition of gender discrimination and had not formulated the necessary guidelines to enforce the convention among employers. Due to the nature of the case, the TFAU was rendered unable to file a class action lawsuit as a plaintiff. In addition, the competent authority failed to conduct a study on the safety of stockings and high heels, which cabin crew are required to wear. When asked about the potential need for directives requiring Taiwanese airlines to take preventive measures, the government wrote them off as unnecessary, citing a lack of relevant guidelines in the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) rule books. Therefore, it cannot be said that the government has fully fulfilled its obligation to the nation to prevent discrimination against female cabin crew and ensure their employment rights, occupational safety, and health. Based on the results of the investigation, the NHRC hereby presents the following three concluding opinions in accordance with Article 2, Subparagraph 1; Article 5; and Article 9 of the Organic Act of the Control Yuan National Human Rights Commission together with four recommendations for the government based on CEDAW and other 3