Ngwena, Charles2025-05-152025-05-152024Charles Ngwena (2023) Applying the intersection between defence of the inherent requirements of the job and the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in the workplace: Damons v City of Cape Town, South African Journal on Human Rights, 39:2-3, 210-224, DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2024.2325409.0258-7203 (print)1996-2126 (online)10.1080/02587203.2024.2325409http://hdl.handle.net/2263/102404In Damons v City of Cape Town (2022), by a majority, the Constitutional Court held that the inherent requirements of the job defence in s 6(2)(b) of the Employment Equity Act is a complete defence to a charge of unfair discrimination in respect of an employee who has no capacity to perform the job in question due to a disability that cannot be rehabilitated or reasonably accommodated. By contrast, in a sole dissent, Pillay AJ held that s 6(2)(b) is not a complete defence where the employer ought to have created a new position to fit the capacities of the employee as a reasonable accommodation measure. This commentary explores the implications of the Damons case and appraises the divergent approaches of the Constitutional Court.en© 2024 the Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Persons with disabilities (PWDs)EmploymentUnfair discriminationEqualityNon-discriminationReasonable accommodationInherent requirements of the jobArticle