Inherent Job Requirements & Unfair Discrimination

Oct 9, 2023

The Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEA), prohibits unfair discrimination based on arbitrary factors and outlines the defence that discrimination is not unfair if linked to an inherent job requirement or a particular skill required to perform the job.

Also refer our article Discrimination in the Workplace – Part 1 describing what discrimination is and the types of discrimination.

Many employers use the inherent requirements as a reason not to appoint a candidate in a job because he/she does not meet the requirements of the job which may be construed as unfair discrimination


Case Law

The case of Damons v City of Cape Town revolves around discrimination in the workplace, focusing on the concept of inherent requirements of the job as a defence, and the extent of reasonable accommodation for employees unable to meet these requirements. The central question posed was whether the employer had unfairly discriminated against the employee based on disability and whether the principle of reasonable accommodation should apply in such cases.

The respondent municipality’s Fire and Rescue Service employed the applicant as a firefighter. However, an accident during training rendered the applicant permanently unfit for regular firefighting duties. Despite his limitations, he was transferred to an administrative role while retaining the firefighter designation and associated remuneration. The municipality had a promotion policy prescribing that individuals seeking advancement to the position of senior firefighter needed to meet specific physical fitness criteria. Despite failing to meet these requirements, the applicant applied for the senior firefighter position, which was subsequently denied on the grounds of his inadequate physical fitness.

The applicant argued that he had suffered unfair discrimination due to his disability, contending that the municipality should have accommodated him by waiving the physical fitness criterion.

The Labour Court initially ruled in favour of the applicant, but on appeal, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) held that physical fitness was an inherent requirement as defined in the EEA. The LAC’s decision was then challenged in the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court emphasised that the inherent requirement defence provided by Section 6(2)(b) of the EEA was a ‘complete defence’. However, it delved into whether an obligation existed for the employer to reasonably accommodate the employee. The Court clarified that reasonable accommodation aimed to level the playing field between disabled and non-disabled employees regarding job performance. This obligation only applied if such accommodation would enable the employee to fulfil the inherent job requirements. Beyond this, accommodation ceased to be reasonable, as it would necessitate employing someone unable to meet the essential job criteria.



 The Constitutional Court determined that the municipality had not unfairly discriminated against the applicant. While the EEA’s inherent requirement defence protected the employer, the Court underlined that reasonable accommodation should only extend to what enables an employee to meet the essential job requirements. In cases where accommodating a disabled employee goes beyond this scope, it is deemed unreasonable. This decision has significant implications for understanding the intersection of inherent job requirements, reasonable accommodation, and unfair discrimination in the workplace.

Disclaimer: LabourMan exclusively provides services to employers.

The content does not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Kindly contact us on or 021 556 1075 to speak to one of our consultants.


Wallace Albertyn

Wallace Albertyn is a Senior Associate and Legal Advisor at LabourMan Consultants.

Recent LabourTalk Articles

Dismissal of Prolonged Cases by the CCMA

Dismissal of Prolonged Cases by the CCMA

Introduction The case of South African Airways(SOC) Limited (in Business Rescue) and Others v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa obo Members and Others (JA32/2020)...

Digital Evidence v Artificial Evidence

Digital Evidence v Artificial Evidence

With the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), it has never been easier to manipulate messages, videos or graphics. Therefore, the integrity of digital evidence in the...

LabourTalk Newsletters

Subscribe and receive labour related information

Follow us



© 2024 ~ All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy