FUR2601
Assessment 2
Semester 2 2025
Due 2025
,FUR2601
Assessment 2
Semester 2 2025
Scenario 1: Gender-Based Verbal Harassment
Description
A woman is subjected to gendered verbal labels such as “aggressive,” “emotional,”
“bitchy,” “hysterical,” and “controlling” in reaction to her conduct, which likely would not
elicit the same response if exhibited by a man. These remarks emerge in either
professional or social contexts and appear rooted in gender stereotypes.
1. Nature of the Discrimination: Unfair Discrimination through Harassment
This scenario reflects unfair discrimination in the form of gender-based harassment. The
language used reinforces harmful stereotypes that penalize women for assertiveness,
attributing emotional instability and irrationality to female identity. These terms are not
applied to men under similar behavioural conditions and are therefore discriminatory.
In terms of legal application, Section 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and sex. Section 10 further
protects the right to dignity, which is directly implicated in this case. If the conduct
occurred within the workplace, Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998
(EEA) prohibits unfair discrimination on grounds including gender, and Section 6(3)
explicitly includes harassment as a form of unfair discrimination. Where the conduct
occurs outside employment, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) applies. Section 8 addresses discrimination on
the ground of gender, while Section 11 prohibits harassment generally.
, The discriminatory nature of the conduct is confirmed through the use of gender-specific
stereotypes that serve to undermine the dignity and professional authority of the
woman. These labels operate within a social and cultural system that views such traits
as negative when expressed by women but neutral or even positive when expressed by
men. This asymmetry constitutes unfair discrimination.
2. Locus Standi
The woman has clear standing to bring a claim. Section 38 of the Constitution provides
that anyone whose rights have been infringed or threatened may approach a court. The
EEA (Section 10) and PEPUDA (Section 20) similarly provide that affected individuals
may lodge complaints regarding unfair discrimination or harassment.
This position is strengthened by the decision in Harksen v Lane NO [1998] ZACC 12,
which outlines a three-stage test for determining unfair discrimination. The first two
stages—differentiation and discrimination—are satisfied by the gender-based labels
used. The third stage, which considers whether the discrimination is unfair, is satisfied
where the conduct impairs dignity, as is evident here.
3. Jurisdiction and Forum Selection
The appropriate forum depends on the context in which the discrimination occurs.
If the harassment occurred in the workplace, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation
and Arbitration (CCMA) has jurisdiction as the first point of contact under Section 10 of
the EEA. If unresolved at that level, the matter may be referred to the Labour Court
under Section 50.
If the harassment took place outside of employment, Equality Courts have jurisdiction
under Section 16 of PEPUDA. These courts are designated within Magistrates’ and
High Courts and are specifically structured to provide accessible forums for dealing with
equality-related matters. Legal Aid South Africa has noted the informal and victim-
friendly nature of Equality Courts, which reduces barriers to justice.
Assessment 2
Semester 2 2025
Due 2025
,FUR2601
Assessment 2
Semester 2 2025
Scenario 1: Gender-Based Verbal Harassment
Description
A woman is subjected to gendered verbal labels such as “aggressive,” “emotional,”
“bitchy,” “hysterical,” and “controlling” in reaction to her conduct, which likely would not
elicit the same response if exhibited by a man. These remarks emerge in either
professional or social contexts and appear rooted in gender stereotypes.
1. Nature of the Discrimination: Unfair Discrimination through Harassment
This scenario reflects unfair discrimination in the form of gender-based harassment. The
language used reinforces harmful stereotypes that penalize women for assertiveness,
attributing emotional instability and irrationality to female identity. These terms are not
applied to men under similar behavioural conditions and are therefore discriminatory.
In terms of legal application, Section 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and sex. Section 10 further
protects the right to dignity, which is directly implicated in this case. If the conduct
occurred within the workplace, Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998
(EEA) prohibits unfair discrimination on grounds including gender, and Section 6(3)
explicitly includes harassment as a form of unfair discrimination. Where the conduct
occurs outside employment, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) applies. Section 8 addresses discrimination on
the ground of gender, while Section 11 prohibits harassment generally.
, The discriminatory nature of the conduct is confirmed through the use of gender-specific
stereotypes that serve to undermine the dignity and professional authority of the
woman. These labels operate within a social and cultural system that views such traits
as negative when expressed by women but neutral or even positive when expressed by
men. This asymmetry constitutes unfair discrimination.
2. Locus Standi
The woman has clear standing to bring a claim. Section 38 of the Constitution provides
that anyone whose rights have been infringed or threatened may approach a court. The
EEA (Section 10) and PEPUDA (Section 20) similarly provide that affected individuals
may lodge complaints regarding unfair discrimination or harassment.
This position is strengthened by the decision in Harksen v Lane NO [1998] ZACC 12,
which outlines a three-stage test for determining unfair discrimination. The first two
stages—differentiation and discrimination—are satisfied by the gender-based labels
used. The third stage, which considers whether the discrimination is unfair, is satisfied
where the conduct impairs dignity, as is evident here.
3. Jurisdiction and Forum Selection
The appropriate forum depends on the context in which the discrimination occurs.
If the harassment occurred in the workplace, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation
and Arbitration (CCMA) has jurisdiction as the first point of contact under Section 10 of
the EEA. If unresolved at that level, the matter may be referred to the Labour Court
under Section 50.
If the harassment took place outside of employment, Equality Courts have jurisdiction
under Section 16 of PEPUDA. These courts are designated within Magistrates’ and
High Courts and are specifically structured to provide accessible forums for dealing with
equality-related matters. Legal Aid South Africa has noted the informal and victim-
friendly nature of Equality Courts, which reduces barriers to justice.
