本文旨在以法釋義學的方法，探討我國先後制定的「性別工作平等法」、「性別平等教育法」、「性騷擾防治法」等三部法律，於性騷擾事件之適用關係、適用範圍，以及各部法律有關性騷擾事件之救濟處理程序規定間之關係，並以公務人員間所生性騷擾事件為主要探討的問題類型。本文認為，由於性別工作平等法中並未針對無職場要素牽涉其中之性騷擾行為加以規範，亦未直接針對性騷擾行為人與被害人間之公法上關係與法律上之處理、救濟程序而為規定，因此凡無涉雇主對職場性騷擾防治義務者，或屬職場中受僱人間所生性騷擾爭議，原則上均無性別工作平等法之適用，此時應適用性騷擾防治法予以處理。公務人員間所生性騷擾事件之處理，於此並無不同。此外，性騷擾防治法的責任規定、裁罰規定與刑罰規定，於主要受性別平等教育法所規範的校園性騷擾事件，亦應有其適用。

This article investigates the legal application, scope and remedies procedures of the three statutory regulations concerning legal protection from sexual harassment: “Gender Equality in Employment Act”, “Gender Equity Education Act” and “Sexual Harassment Prevention Act” by means of legal dogmatic approach with a special focus on the cases among civil servants. This article finds that the “Gender Equality in Employment Act” regulates neither the sexual harassment without work-related factors nor the public law relationship between sexual harassment offenders and victims. As a result, a sexual harassment dispute that does not involve employers’ obligation to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace should be subject to the “Sexual Harassment Prevention Act”, rather than the “Gender Equality in Employment Act”. This rule also applies to sexual harassment among civil servants.Furthermore, the provisions concerning sexual harassment liability,administrative penalty, and criminal penalty in the “Sexual Harassment Prevention Act” should also be applied to sexual harassment on campus.