FUR2601 Assignment 2
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
September 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, Scenario 1
This scenario involves unfair discrimination. While the words used may not fall under the
explicit prohibitions of a specific law, they are examples of subtle, systemic discrimination
and gender-based harassment that creates a hostile environment. It perpetuates harmful
stereotypes and biases against women in both professional and personal spheres.
1. Applicable Law: The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) is the most applicable law. It aims to
prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination on grounds of gender, and addresses hate
speech, harassment, and the promotion of equality. The Employment Equity Act 55
of 1998 (EEA) would also be relevant if the incidents occurred in an employment
context, as it prohibits unfair discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender.
The 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law, and its
provisions on equality (Section 9) and dignity (Section 10) are the foundation for
these other laws.
2. Locus Standi: The aggrieved person does have standing. As the person directly
affected by the discriminatory language and conduct, she has the right to bring a
claim. This is a clear case of direct and personal harm.
3. Jurisdiction: The Equality Court would have jurisdiction to hear a claim under
PEPUDA. If the incidents occurred in the workplace, the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the Labour Court would also
have jurisdiction under the EEA.
4. Remedies: Appropriate remedies could include a court order for the perpetrators to
desist from using such language, an order for damages (monetary compensation for
emotional distress and harm), a public apology, and a declaration that the conduct
constitutes unfair discrimination.
Scenario 2
This scenario constitutes unfair discrimination. While the International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF) (now World Athletics) argued for fair competition, the
requirement for Caster Semenya to take medication to lower her natural testosterone levels is
a form of discrimination based on her intersex status, which is a protected characteristic. It
singles her out for a biological trait she cannot change without medical intervention, unlike
other athletes who may have naturally high testosterone.
1. Applicable Law: The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) is applicable, as it prohibits unfair
discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, and disability (broadly interpreted to
include intersex conditions). The 1996 Constitution's Bill of Rights, particularly
Section 9 (Equality), is paramount, as the case involves the right to equality and
human dignity.
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE
September 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, Scenario 1
This scenario involves unfair discrimination. While the words used may not fall under the
explicit prohibitions of a specific law, they are examples of subtle, systemic discrimination
and gender-based harassment that creates a hostile environment. It perpetuates harmful
stereotypes and biases against women in both professional and personal spheres.
1. Applicable Law: The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) is the most applicable law. It aims to
prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination on grounds of gender, and addresses hate
speech, harassment, and the promotion of equality. The Employment Equity Act 55
of 1998 (EEA) would also be relevant if the incidents occurred in an employment
context, as it prohibits unfair discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender.
The 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law, and its
provisions on equality (Section 9) and dignity (Section 10) are the foundation for
these other laws.
2. Locus Standi: The aggrieved person does have standing. As the person directly
affected by the discriminatory language and conduct, she has the right to bring a
claim. This is a clear case of direct and personal harm.
3. Jurisdiction: The Equality Court would have jurisdiction to hear a claim under
PEPUDA. If the incidents occurred in the workplace, the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the Labour Court would also
have jurisdiction under the EEA.
4. Remedies: Appropriate remedies could include a court order for the perpetrators to
desist from using such language, an order for damages (monetary compensation for
emotional distress and harm), a public apology, and a declaration that the conduct
constitutes unfair discrimination.
Scenario 2
This scenario constitutes unfair discrimination. While the International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF) (now World Athletics) argued for fair competition, the
requirement for Caster Semenya to take medication to lower her natural testosterone levels is
a form of discrimination based on her intersex status, which is a protected characteristic. It
singles her out for a biological trait she cannot change without medical intervention, unlike
other athletes who may have naturally high testosterone.
1. Applicable Law: The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) is applicable, as it prohibits unfair
discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, and disability (broadly interpreted to
include intersex conditions). The 1996 Constitution's Bill of Rights, particularly
Section 9 (Equality), is paramount, as the case involves the right to equality and
human dignity.
