Hoffmann v South African Airways

Last updated

Hoffmann v South African Airways
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameHoffmann v South African Airways
Decided28 September 2000 (2000-09-28)
Docket nos.CCT 17/00
Citation(s) [2000] ZACC 17; 2001 (1) SA 1; 2000 (11) BCLR 1211 ; [2000] 12 BLLR 1365 (CC)
Case history
Appealed fromHoffmann v South African Airways 2000 2 SA 628 (W) in the High Court of South Africa, Witwatersrand Local Division
Court membership
Judges sitting Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Madlanga AJ
Case opinions
Decision byNgcobo J (unanimous)

Hoffmann v South African Airways is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of South African labour law and constitutional law. It concerned employment discrimination on the basis of HIV status and was decided on 28 September 2000.

Contents

In a unanimous judgment written by Sandile Ngcobo, the Constitutional Court found that South African Airways had violated the Constitution in refusing employment to the applicant on the grounds that he was HIV-positive. Such a practice constituted unfair discrimination and violated the applicant's constitutional right to equality. In an unusual step, the court ordered South African Airways to employ the applicant.

Background

In September 1996, Jacques Hoffmann applied for employment as a cabin attendant with South African Airways (SAA), the national airline. [1] After a four-stage screening process, he was selected as a suitable candidate. However, a pre-employment medical examination found that he was HIV-positive. His medical report designated him as "unsuitable" for the role on this basis and he was not employed. [2] [3]

It was common cause among the disputants that Hoffmann was denied employment because of his HIV status. SAA asserted that it was its regular employment practice not to employ HIV-positive persons as cabin attendants, just as it did not employ blind or epileptic cabinet attendants. It advanced several reasons for this, based primarily on the requirement that flight crew had to be fit for worldwide duty – and therefore should be able to take the yellow fever vaccine without an adverse reaction, for example, and should not be prone to contracting opportunistic diseases. Moreover, the life expectancy of HIV-positive persons was too short to warrant the costs of training them as cabinet attendants.

High Court action

Hoffmann nonetheless sued in the High Court of South Africa, alleging that SAA's refusal to employ him constituted unfair discrimination in violation of his constitutional rights. The Witwatersrand Local Division denied his application, finding that SAA's practice was "based on considerations of medical, safety and operational grounds" and "aimed at achieving a worthy and important societal goal". Moreover, it served SAA's commercial interests.

Hoffman appealed to the Constitutional Court of South Africa, where he was represented by Wim Trengove, instructed by the Legal Resources Centre. The AIDS Law Project was admitted as amicus curiae in support of Hoffmann's appeal, and the matter was heard on 18 August 2000. Judgment was handed down on 28 September 2000. [4] [5]

Judgment

Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Sandile Ngcobo found that SAA's employment practice was not justified on any medical or commercial grounds. Indeed, he pointed out that SAA's own medical expert, Barry Schoub, had told the High Court that SAA's concerns were only applicable in the case of immunosuppressed HIV-positive persons with CD4+ counts below 300 cells per microlitre. In this regard, SAA's own medical examination of Hoffmann had found nothing "to indicate that the infection has reached either the asymptomatic immunosuppressed state or the AIDS stage". Confronted with this evidence during the hearings, SAA had conceded that its employment practice could not be justified on medical grounds and that it had therefore acted unfairly in refusing to employ Hoffmann.

The question before the court was therefore whether SAA's unfair conduct had violated any of Hoffmann's constitutional rights. The court answered in the affirmative, finding that it constituted unfair discrimination in violation of the right to equality guaranteed by section 9 of the Constitution. Having established this, Ngcobo found that it was not necessary to consider Hoffmann's further contention that the conduct also violated his constitutional right to dignity and fair labour practice, nor to consider his contention that HIV-positive status constituted a disability for the purposes of section 9(3) of the Constitution.

The court therefore upheld Hoffmann's appeal with costs. It set aside SAA's decision not to employ Hoffmann as a cabin attendant and ordered SAA to offer to employ Hoffmann as a cabinet attendant within 30 days.

Significance

Ngcobo's judgment was regarded as significant not only for its "judicial activism", but also for its introduction of "instatement" as a constitutional remedy. Analogous to reinstatement, an established remedy in labour law for unfair dismissal, Ngcobo prescribed instatement as a means of establishing redress and restoring the status quo ante in situations of wrongfully denied employment. Other courts, including the Labour Court, subsequently applied instatement as a remedy for unfair labour practices. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Justice of South Africa</span> Most senior judge of the Constitutional Court and head of the judiciary of South Africa

The Chief Justice of South Africa is the most senior judge of the Constitutional Court and head of the judiciary of South Africa, who exercises final authority over the functioning and management of all the courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edwin Cameron</span> South African judge

Edwin Cameron is a retired judge who served as a Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He is well known for his HIV/AIDS and gay-rights activism and was hailed by Nelson Mandela as "one of South Africa's new heroes". President Ramaphosa appointed him as Inspecting Judge of Correctional Services from 1 January 2020 and in October 2019 he was elected Chancellor of Stellenbosch University.

Trade unions in South Africa has a history dating back to the 1880s. From the beginning unions could be viewed as a reflection of the racial disunity of the country, with the earliest unions being predominantly for white workers. Through the turbulent years of 1948–1991 trade unions played an important part in developing political and economic resistance, and eventually were one of the driving forces in realising the transition to an inclusive democratic government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000</span>

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 is a comprehensive South African anti-discrimination law. It prohibits unfair discrimination by the government and by private organisations and individuals and forbids hate speech and harassment. The act specifically lists race, gender, sex, pregnancy, family responsibility or status, marital status, ethnic or social origin, HIV/AIDS status, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth as "prohibited grounds" for discrimination, but also contains criteria that courts may apply to determine which other characteristics are prohibited grounds. Employment discrimination is excluded from the ambit of the act because it is addressed by the Employment Equity Act, 1998. The act establishes the divisions of the High Court and designated Magistrates' Courts as "Equality Courts" to hear complaints of discrimination, hate speech and harassment.

Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.

Sandile Ngcobo is a retired South African judge who was the Chief Justice of South Africa from October 2009 to August 2011. He served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from August 1999 until his retirement in August 2011. Before that, he was a judge of the Cape Provincial Division and the Labour Appeal Court.

<i>Toonen v. Australia</i> Court case

Toonen v. Australia was a landmark human rights complaint brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) by Tasmanian resident Nicholas Toonen in 1994. The case resulted in the repeal of Australia's last sodomy laws when the Committee held that sexual orientation was included in the antidiscrimination provisions as a protected status under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Human rights in South Africa are protected under the constitution. The 1998 Human Rights report by Myles Nadioo noted that the government generally respected the rights of the citizens; however, there were concerns over the use of force by law enforcement, legal proceedings and discrimination. The Human Rights Commission is mandated by the South African Constitution and the Human Rights Commission Act of 1994, to monitor, both pro-actively and by way of complaints brought before it, violations of human rights and seeking redress for such violations. It also has an educational role.

Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS or serophobia is the prejudice, fear, rejection, and stigmatization of people with HIV/AIDS. Marginalized, at-risk groups such as members of the LGBTQ+ community, intravenous drug users, and sex workers are most vulnerable to facing HIV/AIDS discrimination. The consequences of societal stigma against PLHIV are quite severe, as HIV/AIDS discrimination actively hinders access to HIV/AIDS screening and care around the world. Moreover, these negative stigmas become used against members of the LGBTQ+ community in the form of stereotypes held by physicians.

The Judicial Service Commission is a body specially constituted by the South African Constitution to recommend persons for appointment to the judiciary of South Africa.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination to the people of South Africa. This equality right is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits both discrimination by the government and discrimination by private persons; however, it also allows for affirmative action to be taken to redress past unfair discrimination.

<i>Barkhuizen v Napier</i> South African legal case

Barkhuizen v Napier is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 4 May 2006 and decided on 4 April 2007. The judges were Chief Justice Pius Langa, Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, and Justices Tholie Madala, Yvonne Mokgoro, Sandile Ngcobo, Bess Nkabinde, Kate O'Regan, Albie Sachs, Thembile Skweyiya, Johann van der Westhuizen, and Zak Yacoob.

The Labour Court is a South African court that handles labour law cases, that is, disputes arising from the relationship between employer, employee and trade union. The court was established by the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and has a status similar to that of a division of the High Court. It has its seat in Johannesburg and branches in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Under apartheid in South Africa, Apartheid laws and social norms assigned black women a lower status, leading to what is now known as the “triple oppression” of race, class, and gender.

<i>Khosa v Minister of Social Development</i> South African legal case

Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others, Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which established that it is unconstitutional to exclude permanent residents from the social welfare system on the grounds that they lack South African citizenship. The court found that provisions of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 were unconstitutional on that basis.

Kylie v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others is an important decision in South African labour law, handed down on 26 May 2010 in the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge of Appeal Dennis Davis held that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applied to sex workers and that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration therefore had jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a sex worker and the brothel that had fired her. Although the court affirmed that sex workers' employment contracts were legally unenforceable, it held that sex workers were nonetheless protected by the labour rights granted in section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa.

<i>S v Jordan</i> South African legal case

S v Jordan and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which confirmed the constitutionality of statutory prohibitions on brothel-keeping and prostitution. It was handed down on 9 October 2002 with a majority judgment by Justice Sandile Ngcobo.

References

  1. Rugege, Sam (2001). "A Summary of Some Cases on HIV/AIDS". Law, Democracy and Development. 5: 237.
  2. Ngwena, Charles (1 January 2003). "Hoffmann v South African Airways and HIV/Aids in the workplace: subjecting corporate ideology to the majesty of the Constitution". SA Public Law. 18 (2).
  3. Osode, Patrick C. (2001). "Defining the Limits of Permissible Employment Discrimination against Persons Living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa: Hoffman v. South African Airways [2000] 12 BLLR 1365". Journal of African Law. 45 (2): 217–226. ISSN   0021-8553.
  4. "SAA ordered to employ HIV+ man". News24. 28 September 2000. Retrieved 4 February 2024.
  5. Elliott, R. (2000). "South Africa: airline found guilty of employment discrimination". Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review. 5 (4): 32–33. ISSN   1496-399X. PMID   11833169.
  6. Okpaluba, Chuks (2017). "Developing the Jurisprudence of Constitutional Remedies for Breach of Fundamental Rights in South Africa: An Analysis of Hoffman and Related Cases". Southern African Public Law. 32 (1&2): 26 pages–26 pages. doi:10.25159/2522-6800/3578. ISSN   2522-6800.