Substantive equality and the challenge to affimative action as justification for unfair discrimination
- Authors: Delport, Petrus Jacobus
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment , Affirmative action programs , Equality
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/15467 , vital:28256
- Description: South Africa’s history as a nation is replete with examples of inequality and unfair discrimination. The working arena was no exception to the rule. In fact, it was one of the areas where inequality was most prevalent. Discriminatory legislation was promulgated under the Apartheid regime. These laws enforced differential treatment of employees along racial lines. After 1994, the newly democratic South Africa, through the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”), regarded all people as equal before the law and entitled to equal benefit and protection under the law. National legislation was subsequently promulgated to give effect to this constitutional objective. The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “EEA”), specifically, gave effect to all employees’ constitutional right to equality in the workplace. Under the EEA, unfair discrimination was forbidden. The EEA also required employers to implement measures to eradicate the injustices of the past. Subsequent to the enactment of the EEA, the Courts reiterated two tests to determine whether unfair discrimination had taken place in the workplace. It also tested whether an affirmative action measure could justify such unfair discrimination. These two tests, referred to in Harksen v Lane NO and others (CCT9/97) [1997] ZACC 12 (11) BCLR 1489 (CC) (Hereinafter referred to as the “Harksen test”) and Minister of Finance v Van Heerden 2004 (11) BCLR 1125 (CC) (Hereinafter referred to as the “Van Heerden test”), were unfortunately applied by the Courts in an inconsistent manner. This created confusion about which test found application in specific circumstances. The Constitutional Court then clarified the confusion through the South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard (2014) ZACC 23 (CC) (Hereinafter referred to as the “Barnard” decision”). It is important to note that this study does not seek to evaluate the correctness of the Barnard decision, nor does it consider the cases prior to the Barnard decision. Rather, this study considers the extent to which the Barnard decision informed later cases dealing with unfair discrimination and affirmative action. In the remaining chapters of this treatise the writer will attempt to answer this question as follows: In chapter two, the legislative framework applicable to issues of unfair discrimination and the application of affirmative action is discussed. Chapter three comprises of a detailed analysis of the Barnard decision. In chapters four and five the writer investigates how the Barnard decision informed four recent cases concerning affirmative action and unfair discrimination in the workplace. These discussions enabled the writer to, in the final chapter; conclude that all four cases were indeed informed by the Barnard decision. The Department of Correctional Services case, however, reiterated the Barnard decision to its fullest extent.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Delport, Petrus Jacobus
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Discrimination in employment , Affirmative action programs , Equality
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/15467 , vital:28256
- Description: South Africa’s history as a nation is replete with examples of inequality and unfair discrimination. The working arena was no exception to the rule. In fact, it was one of the areas where inequality was most prevalent. Discriminatory legislation was promulgated under the Apartheid regime. These laws enforced differential treatment of employees along racial lines. After 1994, the newly democratic South Africa, through the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”), regarded all people as equal before the law and entitled to equal benefit and protection under the law. National legislation was subsequently promulgated to give effect to this constitutional objective. The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “EEA”), specifically, gave effect to all employees’ constitutional right to equality in the workplace. Under the EEA, unfair discrimination was forbidden. The EEA also required employers to implement measures to eradicate the injustices of the past. Subsequent to the enactment of the EEA, the Courts reiterated two tests to determine whether unfair discrimination had taken place in the workplace. It also tested whether an affirmative action measure could justify such unfair discrimination. These two tests, referred to in Harksen v Lane NO and others (CCT9/97) [1997] ZACC 12 (11) BCLR 1489 (CC) (Hereinafter referred to as the “Harksen test”) and Minister of Finance v Van Heerden 2004 (11) BCLR 1125 (CC) (Hereinafter referred to as the “Van Heerden test”), were unfortunately applied by the Courts in an inconsistent manner. This created confusion about which test found application in specific circumstances. The Constitutional Court then clarified the confusion through the South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard (2014) ZACC 23 (CC) (Hereinafter referred to as the “Barnard” decision”). It is important to note that this study does not seek to evaluate the correctness of the Barnard decision, nor does it consider the cases prior to the Barnard decision. Rather, this study considers the extent to which the Barnard decision informed later cases dealing with unfair discrimination and affirmative action. In the remaining chapters of this treatise the writer will attempt to answer this question as follows: In chapter two, the legislative framework applicable to issues of unfair discrimination and the application of affirmative action is discussed. Chapter three comprises of a detailed analysis of the Barnard decision. In chapters four and five the writer investigates how the Barnard decision informed four recent cases concerning affirmative action and unfair discrimination in the workplace. These discussions enabled the writer to, in the final chapter; conclude that all four cases were indeed informed by the Barnard decision. The Department of Correctional Services case, however, reiterated the Barnard decision to its fullest extent.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
Putting the millenium development goal no 3- gender equality and women empowerment into practice: a case study of a semi-urban village in the Eastern Cape
- Authors: Gqomo, Nomaxabiso
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Women's rights , Women -- Social conditions , Equality
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:9086 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1010079 , Women's rights , Women -- Social conditions , Equality
- Description: Gender inequality and women empowerment constitute one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed to, by United Nations in 2000. The South African 2010 country report on MDGs shows an increase in the share that women have in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector. It further states that in the Eastern Cape Province, women accounted for more than half of employees in the non-agricultural sector. This study conducted evaluated gender differences in terms of wage employment in a semi-urban village in the Eastern Cape. Findings show that gender differences in wage employment still exist, in favour of males.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
- Authors: Gqomo, Nomaxabiso
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Women's rights , Women -- Social conditions , Equality
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:9086 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1010079 , Women's rights , Women -- Social conditions , Equality
- Description: Gender inequality and women empowerment constitute one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed to, by United Nations in 2000. The South African 2010 country report on MDGs shows an increase in the share that women have in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector. It further states that in the Eastern Cape Province, women accounted for more than half of employees in the non-agricultural sector. This study conducted evaluated gender differences in terms of wage employment in a semi-urban village in the Eastern Cape. Findings show that gender differences in wage employment still exist, in favour of males.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
Equality, resources and primary goods: Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls on the currency of egalitarianism
- Authors: May, Simon James Peter
- Date: 1996
- Subjects: Rawls, John, 1921-2002 , Dworkin, R M , Law -- Philosophy , Law -- Political apsects , Equality , Justice , Jurisprudence
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:2714 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1002844 , Rawls, John, 1921-2002 , Dworkin, R M , Law -- Philosophy , Law -- Political apsects , Equality , Justice , Jurisprudence
- Description: In this thesis I compare the work of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls within the context of the 'equality of what?' debate. I argue that the Rawlsian paradigm offers a much more flexible defence of a resourcist approach to egalitarianism than Dworkin's theoI)' of' equality of resources'. I argue that Dworkin's fundamental distinction between persons and circumstances is flawed because it involves commitment to a view of the person which belongs in the realm of' comprehensive moral doctrines', rather than in the realm of a political theory of justice. I also argue that an alternative distinction between choice and luck, expressed in the 'luck-neutralising aim' of egalitarianism, is inappropriate since it too involves transgressing political constraints on theories of justice. Rawls's utilisation of primary goods in his theory of justice is supported by considerations derived from the work of Thomas Scanlon. The schematic picture of relative urgency which Scanlon advances provides the rationale for the use of primary goods, and also allows us to discriminate . between compensation for handicaps and compensation for expensive tastes. Scanlon's schematic picture also frees the utilisation of primary goods from criticisms raised by Amartya Sen. Lastly, I discuss arguments advanced by Susan Hurley which enable an interpretation of Rawls's original position device which is independent of the luck-neutralising aim. Her arguments are extended as a criticism of Dworkin's hypothetical insurance market.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1996
- Authors: May, Simon James Peter
- Date: 1996
- Subjects: Rawls, John, 1921-2002 , Dworkin, R M , Law -- Philosophy , Law -- Political apsects , Equality , Justice , Jurisprudence
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:2714 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1002844 , Rawls, John, 1921-2002 , Dworkin, R M , Law -- Philosophy , Law -- Political apsects , Equality , Justice , Jurisprudence
- Description: In this thesis I compare the work of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls within the context of the 'equality of what?' debate. I argue that the Rawlsian paradigm offers a much more flexible defence of a resourcist approach to egalitarianism than Dworkin's theoI)' of' equality of resources'. I argue that Dworkin's fundamental distinction between persons and circumstances is flawed because it involves commitment to a view of the person which belongs in the realm of' comprehensive moral doctrines', rather than in the realm of a political theory of justice. I also argue that an alternative distinction between choice and luck, expressed in the 'luck-neutralising aim' of egalitarianism, is inappropriate since it too involves transgressing political constraints on theories of justice. Rawls's utilisation of primary goods in his theory of justice is supported by considerations derived from the work of Thomas Scanlon. The schematic picture of relative urgency which Scanlon advances provides the rationale for the use of primary goods, and also allows us to discriminate . between compensation for handicaps and compensation for expensive tastes. Scanlon's schematic picture also frees the utilisation of primary goods from criticisms raised by Amartya Sen. Lastly, I discuss arguments advanced by Susan Hurley which enable an interpretation of Rawls's original position device which is independent of the luck-neutralising aim. Her arguments are extended as a criticism of Dworkin's hypothetical insurance market.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1996
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »