According to a representative of AEL, the company's technologists help with the development of products and it

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

According to a representative of AEL, the company's technologists help with the development of products and it is essential that they are able to communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing. This is because technologists have to discuss requirements and specifications with suppliers. They also have to communicate with plant employees to ensure they understand the requirements from a manufacturing perspective, and they must be able to communicate with front-end users so products can be used safely.
The dispute between Tshaya and AEL took place against the background of the Employment Equity Act, which says no- one may unfairly discriminate against an employee because of their disability, among other grounds. But the law also says it isn't unfair discrimination to exclude someone "on the basis of an inherent requirement of the job".
The question was thus whether AEL would satisfy the court that the job really required the ability to communicate with others.
The judge hearing the matter, Portia Nkutha-Nkontwana, said courts had previously found there was a strict test for deciding such issues, and that "a mere legitimate commercial rationale will not be enough". In addition, the employer has to show it is "impossible to accommodate the individual employee without imposing insurmountable operational difficulty".
Nkutha-Nkontwana said the vacancy advertisement made clear that "effective communication" was a requisite for the position, and AEL's evidence that it was pivotal for technologists to be able to communicate was not seriously challenged in court.
Expert evidence made clear the extent of Tshaya's speech disability. It was also clear that AEL, through constant discussions with the union "did what was reasonably possible to accommodate Tshaya", even promoting him to the position
of lead operator, a post that he, at least initially, “gladly accepted".

The judge concluded that due to his serious speech impediment, Tshaya was not in a position to perform the essential requirements of the technologist position, and that he had thus failed to make out a case to sustain a claim of unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act.

Now that you have read the case study, answer the following questions.
Question 1
Identify and discuss the dimensions of diversity which are evident in the case study.
Question 2
Discuss the difference between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination, and explain why AEL's treatment of Tshaya did not amount to unfair discrimination.
Question 3
"The dispute between Tshaya and AEL took place against the background of the Employment Equity Act." What is employment equity and how would an organisation like AEL go about implementing it? Discuss.