South Africa Case Law

Solidarity v Minister of Labour and Others (J3092/18)

Solidarity v Minister of Labour and Others (J3092/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 277; [2020] 1 BLLR 79 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 273 (LC) (8 October 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J3092/18

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court held that the Equality Report issued by the South African Human Rights Commission is advisory and not binding on government or any other party. The SAHRC's powers under the Constitution and its enabling legislation are limited to making recommendations and conducting research; it cannot issue binding directions or order legislative amendments. The report was compiled as part of the SAHRC's monitoring and assessment function, not as a result of an investigation into a violation of human rights. The court found no statutory or constitutional basis to treat the report as binding, nor a…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Affirmative Action
• Chapter Nine Institutions
• Binding Effect Of Reports
• Substantive Equality

Solidarity v Department of Correctional Services and Others; In Re: Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others, Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others (C368/12, C986/12,)

Solidarity v Department of Correctional Services and Others; In Re: Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others, Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others (C368/12, C986/12,) [2014] ZALCCT 4; [2014] 4 BLLR 404 (LC); (2014) 35 ILJ 1647 (LC) (6 February 2014)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C368/12, C986/12

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court ordered the Department to enforce an earlier employment-equity ruling pending appeal, finding urgency and the balance of convenience favoured Solidarity.

• Employment Equity Act
• Affirmative Action
• Demographic Targets
• Rule 49 11 Enforcement
• Substantive Equality
• Employment-equity

Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others, Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others (C 368/2012, C968/2012)

Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others, Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others (C 368/2012, C968/2012) [2013] ZALCCT 38; [2014] 1 BLLR 76 (LC); (2014) 35 ILJ 504 (LC) (18 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C368/2012, C968/2012

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court held that the Department of Correctional Services' Employment Equity Plan, which relied solely on national demographic targets and disregarded regional demographics, was inconsistent with the requirements of the Employment Equity Act and the Constitution. Section 42 of the EEA mandates that both national and regional demographics must be considered when setting equity targets for designated groups. The failure to do so resulted in unfair discrimination against black and coloured employees in the Western Cape, as the plan excluded them from equitable opportunities for appointment and…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Affirmative Action
• Unfair Discrimination
• Regional Demographics
• Substantive Equality

Singh v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (57331/2011)

Singh v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (57331/2011) [2013] ZAEQC 1; 2013 (3) SA 66 (EqC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2807 (EqC) (23 January 2013)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

57331/2011

Judge

A P Ledwaba

The court found that the criteria and policies used by the Magistrates Commission for short-listing and appointing entry level magistrates were unfairly discriminatory as they failed to specifically consider disability, despite constitutional and statutory obligations to promote substantive equality. Section 174(2) of the Constitution, while mentioning race and gender, does not exclude disability, and section 9(3) together with the Equality Act and international conventions require active promotion of disabled persons. The respondents' reliance on race and gender alone was insufficient and th…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Judicial Appointments
• Disability Rights
• Affirmative Action
• Section 174 Constitution
• Substantive Equality

Pillay v KwaZulu-Natal MEC of Education (AR791/05)

Pillay v KwaZulu-Natal MEC of Education (AR791/05) [2006] ZAKZHC 8; 2006 (10) BCLR 1237 (N) (5 July 2006)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

AR791/05

Judges

Kondile, Tshabalala

The High Court held that banning a Hindu learner from wearing a nose stud at school was unfair discrimination and declared the prohibition invalid.

• Unfair Discrimination
• Religious And Cultural Rights
• School Code Of Conduct
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Substantive Equality
• Human Dignity

Pillay v Kwazulu-Natal MEC of Education, Cronje and Others (AR 791/05)

Pillay v Kwazulu-Natal MEC of Education, Cronje and Others (AR 791/05) [2006] ZAEQC 1; 2006 (6) SA 363 (EqC) (5 July 2006)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

AR 791/05

Judges

Kondile, Tshabalala

The court found that the school code of conduct, by prohibiting the wearing of a nose stud for cultural and religious reasons, constituted unfair discrimination against the appellant, her daughter, and their group. The evidence established that the nose stud is of significant cultural and religious importance in South Indian Hindu tradition. The code of conduct failed to reasonably accommodate diversity and was inconsistent with the Constitution, the Equality Act, and the Schools Act. The court emphasised that substantive equality requires recognition and accommodation of difference, and that…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Discrimination
• Religious And Cultural Rights
• School Code Of Conduct
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Human Dignity
• Substantive Equality