South Africa Case Law

Allpass v Mooikloof Estates (Pty) Ltd t/a Mooikloof Equestrain Centre (JS178/09)

Allpass v Mooikloof Estates (Pty) Ltd t/a Mooikloof Equestrain Centre (JS178/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 7; 2011 (2) SA 638 (LC) ; [2011] 5 BLLR 462 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1637 (LC) (16 February 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS178/09

Judge

Bhoola

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was primarily motivated by his HIV status, not by any inability to perform his duties or by dishonesty. The respondent failed to prove that the applicant's medical conditions, including his allergy to penicillin, rendered him incapable of fulfilling the inherent requirements of the job. The expectation that the applicant should have disclosed his HIV status violated his right to privacy and dignity. The respondent's reliance on alleged dishonesty and inherent job requirements was a thinly veiled attempt to disguise discrimination. The dismissal w…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Hiv Discrimination
• Inherent Job Requirements
• Employment Equity Act
• Right To Privacy
• Damages For Unfair Dismissal

Lagadien v University of Cape Town (C489/98)

Lagadien v University of Cape Town (C489/98) [2000] ZALC 107; [2001] 1 BLLR 76 (LC) (26 September 2000)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C489/98

Judge

B M Jammy

The Labour Court dismissed a discrimination claim over appointment to a university disability unit post, finding the selection criteria were justified.

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Indirect Discrimination
• Inherent Job Requirements
• Labour-law
• Employment-equity

Kadiaka v Amalgamated Beverage Industries (J1168/97)

Kadiaka v Amalgamated Beverage Industries (J1168/97) [1998] ZALC 88 (28 October 1998)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J1168/97

Judge

Landman

The court found that ABI's refusal to employ ex-New Age employees constituted discrimination, as it treated a class of applicants differently. However, this discrimination was not on any of the listed grounds in the Labour Relations Act, but rather on an arbitrary ground. The court held that not all arbitrary discrimination is unfair; it must be assessed in light of commercial justification and societal values. ABI's policy was motivated by bona fide commercial reasons: maintaining morale, rewarding loyalty, ensuring brand commitment, and avoiding corruption. The ban was temporary and not vin…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Employment Discrimination
• Arbitrary Ground Discrimination
• Managerial Prerogative
• Burden Of Proof
• Inherent Job Requirements