FUR2601
Assessment 2
Semester 2 2025
Due 2025
,FUR2601
Assessment 2 2025
Semester 2 2025
Scenario 1: Gender-Based Verbal Harassment
Description
A woman is labelled with terms such as “aggressive,” “controlling,” “crazy,” “difficult,”
“bitchy,” “emotional,” “hysterical,” and “stalker” in response to conduct that would not be
framed negatively if demonstrated by a man. These remarks target both her
professional and personal identity, drawing on entrenched gender stereotypes.
Applicable Laws
Section 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 prohibits
unfair discrimination on various grounds, including gender and sex. These provisions
apply horizontally, meaning individuals, not only the state, may be held liable for
violations. In this case, the discriminatory conduct infringes the complainant’s dignity
and equality rights.
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) is applicable if the harassment occurs
within an employment context. Section 6(1) prohibits unfair discrimination on listed
grounds, and section 6(3) explicitly includes harassment as a form of unfair
discrimination.
If the harassment occurs outside the workplace, the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) applies. Section 8 prohibits
unfair discrimination based on gender, and section 11 includes harassment as a specific
form of discrimination. These provisions protect against the reinforcement of systemic
stereotypes through everyday verbal conduct.
These legal frameworks collectively confirm that the remarks likely constitute unfair
discrimination, particularly in the form of gender-based harassment.
, The application of either the EEA or PEPUDA depends on the context of occurrence but
is underpinned by constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
Locus Standi
The woman has standing to bring a claim under section 38 of the Constitution, which
allows anyone whose rights have been infringed or threatened to approach a competent
court. In the context of employment, she may lodge a complaint under section 10 of the
EEA. If the conduct occurred outside the workplace, section 20 of PEPUDA gives her
the right to bring the complaint before an Equality Court.
The standing is based on personal impairment of dignity, a central concern in the
equality jurisprudence. In Harksen v Lane NO 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC), the Constitutional
Court held that the impairment of dignity is a critical factor in determining whether
discrimination is unfair.
Jurisdiction
If the remarks occurred at work, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) has jurisdiction under section 10 of the EEA. If the matter is not
resolved through conciliation, it may be referred to the Labour Court in terms of section
50.
If the conduct occurred in a non-employment setting, the Equality Courts—established
under section 16 of PEPUDA—have jurisdiction. These courts, which include
designated Magistrates’ Courts and High Courts, are accessible and less adversarial
than traditional courts. They are specifically designed to address equality violations,
including systemic discrimination.
The choice of forum must align with the context of the incident. However, for non-
workplace matters, Equality Courts offer a more inclusive and remedial approach,
particularly for addressing structural discrimination.
Assessment 2
Semester 2 2025
Due 2025
,FUR2601
Assessment 2 2025
Semester 2 2025
Scenario 1: Gender-Based Verbal Harassment
Description
A woman is labelled with terms such as “aggressive,” “controlling,” “crazy,” “difficult,”
“bitchy,” “emotional,” “hysterical,” and “stalker” in response to conduct that would not be
framed negatively if demonstrated by a man. These remarks target both her
professional and personal identity, drawing on entrenched gender stereotypes.
Applicable Laws
Section 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 prohibits
unfair discrimination on various grounds, including gender and sex. These provisions
apply horizontally, meaning individuals, not only the state, may be held liable for
violations. In this case, the discriminatory conduct infringes the complainant’s dignity
and equality rights.
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) is applicable if the harassment occurs
within an employment context. Section 6(1) prohibits unfair discrimination on listed
grounds, and section 6(3) explicitly includes harassment as a form of unfair
discrimination.
If the harassment occurs outside the workplace, the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) applies. Section 8 prohibits
unfair discrimination based on gender, and section 11 includes harassment as a specific
form of discrimination. These provisions protect against the reinforcement of systemic
stereotypes through everyday verbal conduct.
These legal frameworks collectively confirm that the remarks likely constitute unfair
discrimination, particularly in the form of gender-based harassment.
, The application of either the EEA or PEPUDA depends on the context of occurrence but
is underpinned by constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
Locus Standi
The woman has standing to bring a claim under section 38 of the Constitution, which
allows anyone whose rights have been infringed or threatened to approach a competent
court. In the context of employment, she may lodge a complaint under section 10 of the
EEA. If the conduct occurred outside the workplace, section 20 of PEPUDA gives her
the right to bring the complaint before an Equality Court.
The standing is based on personal impairment of dignity, a central concern in the
equality jurisprudence. In Harksen v Lane NO 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC), the Constitutional
Court held that the impairment of dignity is a critical factor in determining whether
discrimination is unfair.
Jurisdiction
If the remarks occurred at work, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) has jurisdiction under section 10 of the EEA. If the matter is not
resolved through conciliation, it may be referred to the Labour Court in terms of section
50.
If the conduct occurred in a non-employment setting, the Equality Courts—established
under section 16 of PEPUDA—have jurisdiction. These courts, which include
designated Magistrates’ Courts and High Courts, are accessible and less adversarial
than traditional courts. They are specifically designed to address equality violations,
including systemic discrimination.
The choice of forum must align with the context of the incident. However, for non-
workplace matters, Equality Courts offer a more inclusive and remedial approach,
particularly for addressing structural discrimination.
