, Question 1
Scenario 1: Discriminatory Language and Conduct Towards a Woman
1. Applicable Laws:
The scenario highlights how women are often subjected to gender-based stereotyping and
derogatory remarks in both personal and professional contexts. Such actions amount to
unfair discrimination based on sex and gender.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) stands as the
supreme law, with Section 9 guaranteeing equality and explicitly prohibiting
discrimination on the grounds of gender and sex.
The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000
(PEPUDA) provides specific legal measures against gender-based harassment and
stereotyping.
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 prohibits unfair treatment and language that
reinforces harmful stereotypes in the workplace.
2. Locus Standi:
The affected woman has the legal right (standing) to pursue a claim under both the
Constitution and PEPUDA.
She may bring a complaint to the Equality Court, or, if the issue arises in the workplace,
to the Labour Court.
3. Court Jurisdiction:
The Equality Court deals with cases of discrimination and hate speech under PEPUDA.
The High Court may intervene where constitutional rights are directly implicated.
The Labour Court has jurisdiction where discrimination arises in employment settings.
4. Remedies:
A declaration that the remarks constitute unfair discrimination under Section 11 of
PEPUDA.
An interdict to prevent further discriminatory conduct.
Compensation for emotional and psychological harm (as supported in Minister of
Finance v Van Heerden 2004).
Orders requiring training and awareness programmes to combat gender stereotypes.
Legal Justification:
Using terms like “crazy,” “difficult,” or “bitchy” relies on negative gender stereotypes that
diminish women. Both the Constitution and PEPUDA prohibit such conduct. In South African
Police Service v South African Rugby Football Union 2000, the Constitutional Court stressed
that such stereotyping amounts to discrimination and undermines dignity.
Scenario 1: Discriminatory Language and Conduct Towards a Woman
1. Applicable Laws:
The scenario highlights how women are often subjected to gender-based stereotyping and
derogatory remarks in both personal and professional contexts. Such actions amount to
unfair discrimination based on sex and gender.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) stands as the
supreme law, with Section 9 guaranteeing equality and explicitly prohibiting
discrimination on the grounds of gender and sex.
The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000
(PEPUDA) provides specific legal measures against gender-based harassment and
stereotyping.
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 prohibits unfair treatment and language that
reinforces harmful stereotypes in the workplace.
2. Locus Standi:
The affected woman has the legal right (standing) to pursue a claim under both the
Constitution and PEPUDA.
She may bring a complaint to the Equality Court, or, if the issue arises in the workplace,
to the Labour Court.
3. Court Jurisdiction:
The Equality Court deals with cases of discrimination and hate speech under PEPUDA.
The High Court may intervene where constitutional rights are directly implicated.
The Labour Court has jurisdiction where discrimination arises in employment settings.
4. Remedies:
A declaration that the remarks constitute unfair discrimination under Section 11 of
PEPUDA.
An interdict to prevent further discriminatory conduct.
Compensation for emotional and psychological harm (as supported in Minister of
Finance v Van Heerden 2004).
Orders requiring training and awareness programmes to combat gender stereotypes.
Legal Justification:
Using terms like “crazy,” “difficult,” or “bitchy” relies on negative gender stereotypes that
diminish women. Both the Constitution and PEPUDA prohibit such conduct. In South African
Police Service v South African Rugby Football Union 2000, the Constitutional Court stressed
that such stereotyping amounts to discrimination and undermines dignity.
