Abstract
The applicants in this seminal judgment of the Constitutional Court were both Coloured males and females. As such they were denied promotion by the Department of Correctional Services in the Western Cape, a province in which there is a Coloured majority, on the basis that this population group was overrepresented in employment, in terms of the said Department’s national demographics-based 2010 Employment Equity Plan (EE Plan).Both the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court held that the Department’s EE Plan was unlawful because it set numerical employment targets for the different racial groups that were based exclusively on the national demographic profile, without therefore taking into account the regional demographic profile, as it was obligated to do by virtue of section 42(1)(a) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EE Act), as it read at the time.However, neither of the abovementioned Courts set aside the EE Plan as invalid, nor did they grant the remedies applied for. As a result, the applicants sought in an appeal to the Constitutional Court for appropriate relief.
Highlights
Solidarity v Department of Correctional Services 2016 (5) SA 594 (CC). The applicants in this seminal judgment of the Constitutional Court were both Coloured males and females. As such they were denied promotion by the Department of Correctional Services in the Western Cape, a province in which there is a Coloured majority, on the basis that this population group was overrepresented in employment, in terms of the said Department’s national demographics-based 2010 Employment Equity Plan (EE Plan)
Both the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court held that the Department’s EE Plan was unlawful because it set numerical employment targets for the different racial groups that were based exclusively on the national demographic profile, without taking into account the regional demographic profile, as it was obligated to do by virtue of section 42(1)(a) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EE Act), as it read at the time
As to whether numerical targets constitute quotas, it pointed out that a distinction must be drawn between a quota, which is prohibited by section 15(3) of the Equity Act of 1998 (EE Act) and a numerical target, which is not
Summary
The applicants in this seminal judgment of the Constitutional Court were both Coloured males and females As such they were denied promotion by the Department of Correctional Services in the Western Cape, a province in which there is a Coloured majority, on the basis that this population group was overrepresented in employment, in terms of the said Department’s national demographics-based 2010 Employment Equity Plan (EE Plan). Both the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court held that the Department’s EE Plan was unlawful because it set numerical employment targets for the different racial groups that were based exclusively on the national demographic profile, without taking into account the regional demographic profile, as it was obligated to do by virtue of section 42(1)(a) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EE Act), as it read at the time. The applicants sought in an appeal to the Constitutional Court for appropriate relief
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
