Hoffmann v South African Airways (CCT17/00) [2000] ZACC 17; 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (11) BCLR 1235 (CC); [2000] 12 BLLR 1365 (CC); (2000) 21 ILJ 2357 (CC) (28 September 2000)

Hoffmann v South African Airways (CCT17/00) [2000] ZACC 17; 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (11) BCLR 1235 (CC); [2000] 12 BLLR 1365 (CC); (2000) 21 ILJ 2357 (CC) (28 September 2000)

The Constitutional Court held that SAA's blanket exclusion of HIV-positive individuals from employment as cabin attendants constituted unfair discrimination and violated the applicant's right to equality under section 9 of the Constitution. The Court found that the medical evidence did not support the assertion that all HIV-positive persons were unsuitable for the position, and that SAA's policy was based on unfounded assumptions and prejudice rather than objective criteria. The discrimination impaired the applicant's dignity and denied him the opportunity to be assessed on his merits. The Court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to order SAA to employ the applicant as a cabin...

Citation
[2000] ZACC 17
Parties
Applicant: Jacques Charl Hoffmann; Respondent: South African Airways
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2000
Case Number
CCT 17/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand High Court to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the High Court is set aside. SAA's decision not to employ Hoffmann as a cabin attendant is set aside.
Judges
Ngcobo, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Equality Clause, Hiv Status Employment, Human Dignity, Employment Equity Act, Appropriate Relief
Constitutional Law Labour Law Unfair Discrimination Equality Clause Hiv Status Employment Human Dignity Employment Equity Act Appropriate Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacques Charl Hoffmann

Applicant

South African Airways

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand High Court to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does SAA's refusal to employ HIV-positive individuals as cabin attendants violate the constitutional right to equality?
  2. 2 Is the exclusion of HIV-positive persons from employment as cabin attendants unfair discrimination under the Bill of Rights?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate remedy for the violation of constitutional rights in this context?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that SAA's blanket exclusion of HIV-positive individuals from employment as cabin attendants constituted unfair discrimination and violated the applicant's right to equality under section 9 of the Constitution. The Court found that the medical evidence did not support the assertion that all HIV-positive persons were unsuitable for the position, and that SAA's policy was based on unfounded assumptions and prejudice rather than objective criteria. The discrimination impaired the applicant's dignity and denied him the opportunity to be assessed on his merits. The Court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to order SAA to employ the applicant as a cabin...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the High Court is set aside. SAA's decision not to employ Hoffmann as a cabin attendant is set aside.

Orders

  • SAA is ordered forthwith to offer employment to Mr Jacques Charl Hoffmann as a cabin attendant; should he fail to accept the offer within thirty days, the order lapses.
  • SAA is ordered to pay the applicant's costs in the High Court, including costs of two counsel.