NettetERT Case Summary: Hoffmann v South African Airways 2000 (2) SA 628; 2001 (10) BHRC 571; (2000) 3 CHRLD 146. This is the ERT case summary of the Constitutional Court of South Africa decision of Hoffmann v South African Airways 2000 (2) SA 628; 2001 (10) BHRC 571; (2000) 3 CHRLD 146. NettetHoffmann v South African Airways is an important case, heard by the Constitutional Court, [1] in South African labour and constitutional law. Hoffmann argued that he had been unfairly discriminated against on the ground of disability, due to his being HIV positive.The Constitutional Court held that HIV was not a "disability," but found …

S.A. 1 SOUTH AFRICA in: International Labour Law Reports Online …

Nettetcase of Hoffmann v South African Airways 2000 (11) BCLR 1211 (CC): while legitimate commercial interests are important…the greater interests of society require the recognition of the inherent human dignity of every human being. Depriving tenants and mortgagees of the protection of PIE, in the absence of alternative protective measures, would NettetIn 2000, Jacques Hoffmann, a prospective employee of South African Airways (SAA), filed a lawsuit in the Witwatersrand High Court, South Africa, against SAA, a subsidiary of the state-owned Transnet Corporation. Hoffmann alleged that SAA’s employment practices were unconstitutional. bodycorp101

Law of delict

Nettetcase law hoffmann south african airways sa 2001 (10) bhrc chrld 146 reference details jurisdiction: south african, constitutional court of south africa date of. ... Hoffmann v … NettetHoffman v South African Airways 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC). FACTS Hoffman applied for a job at SAA. His application was rejected because of his HIV status. There were four stages … http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2002/15.pdf body corona