FUR2601
Assignment 2
Due 2025
,Fundamental Rights
Question 1
Scenario 1
Nature of Conduct:
The comments directed at the woman reflect gender-based stereotyping, which
constitutes unfair discrimination on the ground of gender. Such conduct violates section
9(3) of the Constitution and contravenes the Promotion of Equality and Prevention
of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA). Furthermore, this behaviour
undermines human dignity, perpetuates inequality, and qualifies as harassment under
section 11 of PEPUDA.
1. Applicable Laws:
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996:
o Section 9 – Right to equality
o Section 10 – Right to human dignity
PEPUDA:
o Section 6 – Prohibition of unfair discrimination
o Section 11 – Prohibition of harassment
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA):
o Section 6(1) – Prohibits unfair discrimination in the workplace (if the
incident occurred at work)
2. Standing (Locus Standi):
The affected woman has the right to approach the courts based on:
Section 38 of the Constitution – Right to enforce fundamental rights
Section 20 of PEPUDA – Access to the Equality Court
EEA provisions – Applicable if the incident occurred in a workplace context
, 3. Jurisdiction:
Equality Court: Handles claims under PEPUDA
Labour Court: Deals with workplace-related discrimination under the EEA
High Court: Hears constitutional claims
4. Remedies:
Equality Court: May order an apology, damages, or issue an interdict under
section 21 of PEPUDA
Labour Court: Can grant compensation or enforce affirmative action measures
under section 50 of the EEA
Constitutional Remedies: Courts may award damages for the infringement of
dignity
Scenario 2
Nature of Conduct:
The restrictions imposed on Caster Semenya by sporting regulations constitute unfair
discrimination based on sex, gender, and biological characteristics. Although sporting
bodies justify these rules on grounds of fairness, they indirectly discriminate against
athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD). The Constitutional Court’s
2023 judgment in Semenya v IAAF affirmed that such rules could be unconstitutional
if applied within South Africa.
1. Applicable Laws:
Constitution of South Africa, 1996:
o Section 9 – Equality
o Section 10 – Human dignity
PEPUDA:
o Section 6 – Prohibition of unfair discrimination
Assignment 2
Due 2025
,Fundamental Rights
Question 1
Scenario 1
Nature of Conduct:
The comments directed at the woman reflect gender-based stereotyping, which
constitutes unfair discrimination on the ground of gender. Such conduct violates section
9(3) of the Constitution and contravenes the Promotion of Equality and Prevention
of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA). Furthermore, this behaviour
undermines human dignity, perpetuates inequality, and qualifies as harassment under
section 11 of PEPUDA.
1. Applicable Laws:
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996:
o Section 9 – Right to equality
o Section 10 – Right to human dignity
PEPUDA:
o Section 6 – Prohibition of unfair discrimination
o Section 11 – Prohibition of harassment
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA):
o Section 6(1) – Prohibits unfair discrimination in the workplace (if the
incident occurred at work)
2. Standing (Locus Standi):
The affected woman has the right to approach the courts based on:
Section 38 of the Constitution – Right to enforce fundamental rights
Section 20 of PEPUDA – Access to the Equality Court
EEA provisions – Applicable if the incident occurred in a workplace context
, 3. Jurisdiction:
Equality Court: Handles claims under PEPUDA
Labour Court: Deals with workplace-related discrimination under the EEA
High Court: Hears constitutional claims
4. Remedies:
Equality Court: May order an apology, damages, or issue an interdict under
section 21 of PEPUDA
Labour Court: Can grant compensation or enforce affirmative action measures
under section 50 of the EEA
Constitutional Remedies: Courts may award damages for the infringement of
dignity
Scenario 2
Nature of Conduct:
The restrictions imposed on Caster Semenya by sporting regulations constitute unfair
discrimination based on sex, gender, and biological characteristics. Although sporting
bodies justify these rules on grounds of fairness, they indirectly discriminate against
athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD). The Constitutional Court’s
2023 judgment in Semenya v IAAF affirmed that such rules could be unconstitutional
if applied within South Africa.
1. Applicable Laws:
Constitution of South Africa, 1996:
o Section 9 – Equality
o Section 10 – Human dignity
PEPUDA:
o Section 6 – Prohibition of unfair discrimination
