MLL5901 ASSIGNMENT 2 2026
DUE 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Considering this judgment, critically discuss the approach adopted by this and
other South African courts in dealing with racism in the workplace.
Question 1: Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC)
1. Issue
The main legal question is: What must an employee prove when claiming unfair
discrimination based on race, and is a mere allegation enough? (Van Niekerk et al,
2019, p. 120)
2. Rule
2.1 The Law on Discrimination
Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 prohibits unfair discrimination
based on race (Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 6(1)). Section 11(1) of the EEA
states that if an employee alleges discrimination on a listed ground like race, the
employer must prove that the discrimination did not happen or was justified
(Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 11(1)).
, 2.2 What is Required to Prove Discrimination?
A "mere allegation" of discrimination is not enough (Van Niekerk et al, 2019, p. 138).
The employee must provide some evidence to support the claim (Du Toit et al, 2015, p.
316). In Janda v First National Bank [2006] 12 BLLR 1156 (LC), the court said the
employee must produce "sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the reason" given by the
employer (Janda v First National Bank [2006] 12 BLLR 1156 (LC) para 18). In Kroukam
v SA Airlink [2005] 12 BLLR 1172 (LAC), the court held that the employee must raise a
"credible possibility" of discrimination (Kroukam v SA Airlink [2005] 12 BLLR 1172 (LAC)
para 28).
3. Application
3.1 The Employee Failed to Provide Evidence
In Sasol, Mr Mokoena (black) earned less than Mr De Lange (white) (Sasol Chemical
Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC) para 5). However,
Mokoena's initial complaint made no mention of race. He only complained about the
salary difference (Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR
91 (LC) para 3).
During the hearing, Mokoena failed to connect the pay difference to his race (Sasol
Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC) para 22). It was
only when the commissioner asked him that he mentioned race. When asked directly if
De Lange was paid more because he was white, Mokoena said "no, I never said that"
(Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC) para
25).
DUE 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Considering this judgment, critically discuss the approach adopted by this and
other South African courts in dealing with racism in the workplace.
Question 1: Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC)
1. Issue
The main legal question is: What must an employee prove when claiming unfair
discrimination based on race, and is a mere allegation enough? (Van Niekerk et al,
2019, p. 120)
2. Rule
2.1 The Law on Discrimination
Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 prohibits unfair discrimination
based on race (Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 6(1)). Section 11(1) of the EEA
states that if an employee alleges discrimination on a listed ground like race, the
employer must prove that the discrimination did not happen or was justified
(Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 11(1)).
, 2.2 What is Required to Prove Discrimination?
A "mere allegation" of discrimination is not enough (Van Niekerk et al, 2019, p. 138).
The employee must provide some evidence to support the claim (Du Toit et al, 2015, p.
316). In Janda v First National Bank [2006] 12 BLLR 1156 (LC), the court said the
employee must produce "sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the reason" given by the
employer (Janda v First National Bank [2006] 12 BLLR 1156 (LC) para 18). In Kroukam
v SA Airlink [2005] 12 BLLR 1172 (LAC), the court held that the employee must raise a
"credible possibility" of discrimination (Kroukam v SA Airlink [2005] 12 BLLR 1172 (LAC)
para 28).
3. Application
3.1 The Employee Failed to Provide Evidence
In Sasol, Mr Mokoena (black) earned less than Mr De Lange (white) (Sasol Chemical
Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC) para 5). However,
Mokoena's initial complaint made no mention of race. He only complained about the
salary difference (Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR
91 (LC) para 3).
During the hearing, Mokoena failed to connect the pay difference to his race (Sasol
Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC) para 22). It was
only when the commissioner asked him that he mentioned race. When asked directly if
De Lange was paid more because he was white, Mokoena said "no, I never said that"
(Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others [2019] 1 BLLR 91 (LC) para
25).
