High court dismisses case to halt employment equity quotas

The Pretoria High Court last week dismissed a case brought by two business organisations, seeking to halt implementation of race and gender employment targets for 18 economic sectors under the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA), which became law in January 2025.

The case was brought by business organisations Sakeliga and the National Employers’ Association of SA (Neasa), after numerical employment targets for businesses with more than 50 employees in the 18 economic sectors were published in April. Businesses that fail to meet these targets face dire consequences.

The state argued that these were targets rather than quotas, intended to increase the representation of blacks, women and people with disabilities in the workplace.

Criticism of the Act

The Act has been criticised for seeking to turn businesses into enforcers of arbitrary state policy and for denying business owners agency over their own employment choices.

Listen: Unpacking amendments to the Employment Equity Act

The court found that the minister had set numerical targets rather than goals, and the application to interdict the implementation of the new employment equity regulations was not a constitutional matter, as was argued by the business groups.

“The application for an interdict or suspension falls to be dismissed,” says the ruling by Judge Graham Moshoana, adding that the court was in no position to examine whether the numerical targets set by the minister were lawful or not. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs.

Plans to appeal

Neasa and Sakeliga say they will now appeal their case directly to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to set aside what they describe as a “deeply flawed judgment”.

The case before the Pretoria High Court was split into two parts: Part A, which asked the court to interdict or suspend the implementation of the targets; and Part B, which has yet to be launched and seeks to have several sections of the Act declared unconstitutional.

Listen/read:

The business organisations say they will now appeal directly to the ConCourt to set aside the Pretoria High Court’s decision, which they claim erred “in not appreciating the constitutional nature of the matter, the suitability of an interdict against the operation of unlawful regulations, and the requirements for consultation before promulgation of regulations, among others.”

They will pursue the ConCourt action in parallel with an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

As part of their strategy to frustrate the implementation of the race, gender, and disability targets, the business organisations say they will assist employers in maximising resistance to, and minimising the harm caused by, the regulations to themselves, their employees, and the public.

Complying with the regulations

Sakeliga and Neasa believe complying with these regulations is impossible, which means tens of thousands of employers must now pursue strategies to mitigate their harm.

“No serious businesses anywhere can be expected to run their hiring off a government spreadsheet. The roughly 50% quotas for men and women, regardless of their differences, are obviously impossible to meet, and the racial quotas are even more far-fetched and disruptive to businesses, workplace harmony, and staff relations,” they say in a statement.

Listen/read:

They advise employers that they are under no obligation to racially classify themselves on the EEA1 forms they are expected to submit to the Department of Employment and Labour. In this case, employers will be expected to fill in the racial classification on the forms, which poses serious legal and practical pitfalls.

The organisations advise businesses to add a condition to all EEA1 forms that they cannot be held accountable for the racial classification performed on the form, as there are no criteria or guidelines to govern how the classification should be made.

They add that employers should set targets for the first four years in line with actual business realities, adding that any five-year targets included on the requisite forms are provided solely because they are legally required and that such targets cannot realistically be met.

Follow Moneyweb’s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.