Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPretorius, J. L.
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-19T11:52:00Z
dc.date.available2015-08-19T11:52:00Z
dc.date.issued2013-12
dc.identifier.citationPretorius, J. L. (2013). The unresolved search for the proper standard of review of affirmative action: Solidarity obo Barnard v SAPS. Journal for Juridical Science, 38(2), 128-141.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn0258-252X (print)
dc.identifier.issn2415-0517 (online)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11660/937
dc.description.abstractIn Solidarity obo Barnard v SAPS, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) set aside the order of the Labour Appeal Court (LAC), which upheld the decision of the National Commissioner of Police not to appoint a white female (Barnard) to the position of superintendent in the National Evaluation Services Division of the South African Police Service (SAPS). The most important issue raised by the judgments is the proper standard of review of affirmative action measures in terms of section 9(2) of the Constitution and section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equity Act (EEA). The Labour Court (LC), the LAC and the SCA all subscribed to different versions of what the standard of review ought to be. In so doing, they also applied different interpretations of the leading judgment of the Constitutional Court on affirmative action, Minister of Finance v Van Heerden. In this note, the different interpretations will be identified and analysed.en_ZA
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherFaculty of Law, University of the Free Stateen_ZA
dc.titleThe unresolved search for the proper standard of review of affirmative action: Solidarity obo Barnard v SAPSen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.description.versionPublisher's versionen_ZA
dc.rights.holderFaculty of Law, University of the Free State


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record