, MRL3702 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2026 ANSWERS - DUE DATE: 14 AUGUST 2026
Summary of Facts
The applicant, who was employed by the third respondent as a security guard, has a speech
impairment in the form of a stutter. During the proceedings, the employee alleged that the
employer transferred him from a work location where his duties required regular interaction
with members of the public to another location because of his disability.1 According to the
employee, this relocation was not based on operational requirements or performance
concerns but was instead directly linked to his speech impairment, which he argued
amounted to discriminatory treatment.
The employer acknowledged that if it were established that the transfer had been motivated
by the employee's disability, such conduct would constitute unfair discrimination.2 However,
the employer disputed that the relocation was based on the employee's disability and
maintained that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. The dispute therefore centred
on determining the true reason for the employee's transfer.
Issue(s) in Dispute
The principal issue before the court was whether the employer had unfairly discriminated
against the employee on the ground of disability.3 More specifically, the Commissioner was
required to determine whether the decision to relocate the employee was motivated by
prejudice arising from his speech impairment or whether it was based on a lawful and
justifiable operational reason unrelated to his disability.4 The outcome of the matter therefore
1
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026]
ZALCJHB 14 (23 January 2026) para 1-2 (SAFLII, 2026).
2
Mmakau para 3 (SAFLII, 2026).
3
Mmakau para 3 (SAFLII, 2026).
4
Mmakau para 3 (SAFLII, 2026).
Summary of Facts
The applicant, who was employed by the third respondent as a security guard, has a speech
impairment in the form of a stutter. During the proceedings, the employee alleged that the
employer transferred him from a work location where his duties required regular interaction
with members of the public to another location because of his disability.1 According to the
employee, this relocation was not based on operational requirements or performance
concerns but was instead directly linked to his speech impairment, which he argued
amounted to discriminatory treatment.
The employer acknowledged that if it were established that the transfer had been motivated
by the employee's disability, such conduct would constitute unfair discrimination.2 However,
the employer disputed that the relocation was based on the employee's disability and
maintained that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. The dispute therefore centred
on determining the true reason for the employee's transfer.
Issue(s) in Dispute
The principal issue before the court was whether the employer had unfairly discriminated
against the employee on the ground of disability.3 More specifically, the Commissioner was
required to determine whether the decision to relocate the employee was motivated by
prejudice arising from his speech impairment or whether it was based on a lawful and
justifiable operational reason unrelated to his disability.4 The outcome of the matter therefore
1
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026]
ZALCJHB 14 (23 January 2026) para 1-2 (SAFLII, 2026).
2
Mmakau para 3 (SAFLII, 2026).
3
Mmakau para 3 (SAFLII, 2026).
4
Mmakau para 3 (SAFLII, 2026).
