Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:22:26Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:22:26Z
dc.date.created 2015-06-09 en
dc.identifier.citation [2016] ZACC 18
dc.identifier.citation (2016) 37 ILJ 1995 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2016 (10) BCLR 1349 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2016 (5) SA 594 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3805
dc.title Solidarity and Others v Department of Correctional Services and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT78/15 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT78/15 en
dc.date.hearing 18 November 2015
dc.contributor.judge Zondo J (majority): [1] to [95]
dc.contributor.judge Nugent AJ (minority): [96] to [134]
dc.date.judgment 15 July 2016
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3805/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28403%20Kb%29-23785.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Validity of employment equity plan – non-compliance with section 42 of Employment Equity Act – failure to take into account demographic profile of both regional and national economically active population in setting numerical targets and assessing representivity – Barnard principle – Also applies to African, Coloured and Indian candidates as well as to men, women and people with disabilities – employee may be denied appointment if he or she belongs to a category of persons that is already adequately represented at relevant occupational level – wrong benchmark used to set targets and determine representation – Plan not declared invalid – refused to appoint candidates – unfair discrimination based on race or gender – numerical targets not quotas – refusal to appoint set aside and appropriate relief granted


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account