Name: Pertunia Senamela Taba
Student No: 15187543
Module: LLW2601
Due date: 15 September 2023
Question 1
Section 9 of the Constitution provides for equality. Section 9(3) of the constitution states that
"the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more
grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour,
sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.On
this basis, Brar Yarca's claim that Mashamplani engaged in deceitful conduct by falling
pregnant is highly problematic and arguably discriminatory.
Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act (EEA) prohibits unfair discrimination against an
employee on arbitrary grounds, including race, sex, disability, age and many others. Not all
discrimination, however, is unfair. In other words, certain types of discrimination can in fact be
fair, according to the act. Given the facts of the case, it appears that Mashamplani’s dismissal
was likely unfair in terms of the EEA.
In terms of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), section 185(1) defines an automatically unfair
dismissal to include a dismissal based on pregnancy. This means that Mashamplani's
dismissal, if based on her pregnancy, was automatically unfair. The potential dismissal of an
employee for falling pregnant raises significant human rights concerns. It suggests a lack of
respect for employees' reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, as well as a discriminatory
view of women's role in society.Bra yarca must be mindful of these kind of issues and create
his workplace environment that is supportive and respectful of all employees, regardless of
their gender, sexual orientation, or family status.
In the case of Harksen v Lane NO and others, the constitutional court held that discrimination
on the basis of pregnancy is unfair.
An employee (Ms Harksen) was fired from her job after she became pregnant. The company
argued that her pregnancy was incompatible with her work responsibilities. The Constitutional
Court disagreed, finding that the dismissal was based on her pregnancy and therefore was
Student No: 15187543
Module: LLW2601
Due date: 15 September 2023
Question 1
Section 9 of the Constitution provides for equality. Section 9(3) of the constitution states that
"the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more
grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour,
sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.On
this basis, Brar Yarca's claim that Mashamplani engaged in deceitful conduct by falling
pregnant is highly problematic and arguably discriminatory.
Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act (EEA) prohibits unfair discrimination against an
employee on arbitrary grounds, including race, sex, disability, age and many others. Not all
discrimination, however, is unfair. In other words, certain types of discrimination can in fact be
fair, according to the act. Given the facts of the case, it appears that Mashamplani’s dismissal
was likely unfair in terms of the EEA.
In terms of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), section 185(1) defines an automatically unfair
dismissal to include a dismissal based on pregnancy. This means that Mashamplani's
dismissal, if based on her pregnancy, was automatically unfair. The potential dismissal of an
employee for falling pregnant raises significant human rights concerns. It suggests a lack of
respect for employees' reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, as well as a discriminatory
view of women's role in society.Bra yarca must be mindful of these kind of issues and create
his workplace environment that is supportive and respectful of all employees, regardless of
their gender, sexual orientation, or family status.
In the case of Harksen v Lane NO and others, the constitutional court held that discrimination
on the basis of pregnancy is unfair.
An employee (Ms Harksen) was fired from her job after she became pregnant. The company
argued that her pregnancy was incompatible with her work responsibilities. The Constitutional
Court disagreed, finding that the dismissal was based on her pregnancy and therefore was
