Reynhardt v University of South Africa (JS 1061/02) [2007] ZALC 96; [2008] 4 BLLR 318 (LC); (2008) 29 ILJ 725 (LC) (17 September 2007)

Reynhardt v University of South Africa (JS 1061/02) [2007] ZALC 96; [2008] 4 BLLR 318 (LC); (2008) 29 ILJ 725 (LC) (17 September 2007)

The court found that the respondent's officials misrepresented the actual racial profile of Deans at the time of the applicant's interview, incorrectly asserting that numerical targets for Black representation had not been met. In fact, the evidence established that the target ratio had already been reached and surpassed, making further preferential treatment unlawful under both the Employment Equity Act and the respondent's own policy. The respondent's reliance on incorrect statistics led to the application of employment equity considerations in circumstances where only merit should have prevailed. The court held that the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race,...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 96
Parties
Applicant: E.C Reynhardt; Respondent: University of South Africa
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2007
Case Number
JS 1061/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The applicant succeeded. The court declared the non-appointment as Dean constituted unfair discrimination based on race and ordered the respondent to pay compensation and damages.
Judges
Ndlovu AJ
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Affirmative Action, Compensation for Unfair Discrimination, Damages, Human Dignity
Labour Law Constitutional Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Affirmative Action Compensation for Unfair Discrimination Damages Human Dignity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E.C Reynhardt

Applicant

University of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race in failing to appoint him as Dean for a second term.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's application of its employment equity policy and plan was lawful and consistent with the Employment Equity Act and its own guidelines.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation and damages for unfair discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's officials misrepresented the actual racial profile of Deans at the time of the applicant's interview, incorrectly asserting that numerical targets for Black representation had not been met. In fact, the evidence established that the target ratio had already been reached and surpassed, making further preferential treatment unlawful under both the Employment Equity Act and the respondent's own policy. The respondent's reliance on incorrect statistics led to the application of employment equity considerations in circumstances where only merit should have prevailed. The court held that the applicant was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race,...

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded. The court declared the non-appointment as Dean constituted unfair discrimination based on race and ordered the respondent to pay compensation and damages.

Orders

  • It is declared that the non-appointment of the applicant as Dean of the Faculty of Science effective 1 April 2002 constituted unfair discrimination against the applicant based on his race.
  • The respondent is directed to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary at the Dean's scale as at 1 April 2002, namely R356,484.00.