Mr Jacques Charl Hoffmann, who was living with HIV, applied for employment as a cabin attendant with South African Airways (SAA) in September 1996. He successfully completed a four-stage selection process and was found to be one of twelve suitable candidates from 173 applicants. His selection was subject to a pre-employment medical examination. The medical examination found him clinically fit, but a blood test revealed he was HIV positive. As a result, the medical report was altered to read that he was "H.I.V. positive" and therefore "unsuitable", and he was refused employment solely on the basis of his HIV status. SAA's policy was to exclude all HIV positive persons from cabin crew positions on alleged safety, medical and operational grounds, particularly relating to yellow fever vaccination requirements for worldwide duty and alleged susceptibility to opportunistic infections. However, SAA's own medical expert, Professor Schoub, confirmed that only persons whose HIV infection had reached the immunosuppression stage with a CD4+ count below 300-350 cells per microlitre posed such risks. The appellant was asymptomatic at the time and did not pose the risks asserted by SAA. The High Court dismissed his constitutional challenge, finding that HIV-negative status was an inherent requirement for cabin attendants. The appellant appealed directly to the Constitutional Court with leave.
The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside. The decision of SAA not to employ Mr Hoffmann as a cabin attendant was set aside. SAA was ordered forthwith to offer to employ Mr Hoffmann as a cabin attendant, provided that should he fail to accept the offer within thirty days of the date of the offer, the order would lapse. SAA was ordered to pay the appellant's costs in both the High Court (costs of two counsel) and the Constitutional Court (costs of two counsel, with second counsel limited to out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred). The amicus curiae (AIDS Law Project) was not awarded costs.
This landmark judgment established critical constitutional protections for people living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa and became a foundational case in equality jurisprudence. It firmly established that people living with HIV constitute a vulnerable group deserving heightened constitutional protection from discrimination. The judgment rejected blanket exclusionary policies based on HIV status and established that employment decisions must be based on individual assessments using current medical evidence rather than stereotypes, prejudice or unfounded assumptions. The case articulated important principles about the impact of discrimination on human dignity, particularly for marginalized groups. It confirmed that commercial considerations, public perception, or practices of competitors cannot justify unfair discrimination. The judgment reinforced ubuntu values and the constitutional imperative to treat people living with HIV with compassion and understanding. It established instatement as the primary constitutional remedy for unfair discrimination in employment. The case was decided during the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa and sent a powerful message against HIV-related stigma and discrimination. It influenced subsequent legislation and policy on HIV/AIDS in employment, health, education and other sectors, and contributed to South Africa's international obligations under various anti-discrimination conventions.