,MRL3702 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE August 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
Study the case of Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd
(D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025) and write a two-
page (maximum) legal opinion about the case. Your answer
must include the following aspects: Summary of the facts of
the case Issue(s) in dispute in the case The court’s decision
At the end provide a well-supported legal opinion which
should cover the
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms Tiisetso K. D. Moleme was employed as a chemist by
Induradec Coatings from October 2021, performing lab-based
research and product-development duties in a chemical
environment. In March 2023 she notified the employer of her
pregnancy and expressed concern about exposure to chemicals
(notably Bisphenol A) in the laboratory. She requested
reassignment or accommodation. Management immediately
removed her from the lab and placed her in an adjacent office
—but without assigning any work for several weeks. She was
given a respirator and sent to her doctors, but both her
gynaecologist and general practitioner declined to opine and
recommended consultation with a health-and-safety expert.
, The company informally contacted an individual described as a
former lecturer in health-and-safety but conducted no formal
risk assessment. In May 2023 a consultation meeting informed
her that no alternative position was available and she was
placed on extended unpaid maternity leave. She ultimately
resigned in early 2024 due to financial duress and loss of home
and credit, and referred the dispute to the Labour Court
alleging pregnancy-based discrimination and breach of
section 26 of the BCEA Bowman’s Law+9Saflii+9Stuvia+9.
2. Issues in Dispute
The case presented two central issues:
1. Whether the employer complied with section 26 of the
Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Code of Good
Practice by assessing and adjusting Ms Moleme’s working
conditions before removing her from duties.
2. If non-compliance occurred, whether that conduct
constituted unfair discrimination on the prohibited ground
of pregnancy under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity
Act, and if so, whether the employer could justify it as
rational and fair Course Hero+3Bowman’s Law+3Saflii+3.
3. The Court’s Decision
Semester 2 2025 - DUE August 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
Study the case of Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd
(D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025) and write a two-
page (maximum) legal opinion about the case. Your answer
must include the following aspects: Summary of the facts of
the case Issue(s) in dispute in the case The court’s decision
At the end provide a well-supported legal opinion which
should cover the
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms Tiisetso K. D. Moleme was employed as a chemist by
Induradec Coatings from October 2021, performing lab-based
research and product-development duties in a chemical
environment. In March 2023 she notified the employer of her
pregnancy and expressed concern about exposure to chemicals
(notably Bisphenol A) in the laboratory. She requested
reassignment or accommodation. Management immediately
removed her from the lab and placed her in an adjacent office
—but without assigning any work for several weeks. She was
given a respirator and sent to her doctors, but both her
gynaecologist and general practitioner declined to opine and
recommended consultation with a health-and-safety expert.
, The company informally contacted an individual described as a
former lecturer in health-and-safety but conducted no formal
risk assessment. In May 2023 a consultation meeting informed
her that no alternative position was available and she was
placed on extended unpaid maternity leave. She ultimately
resigned in early 2024 due to financial duress and loss of home
and credit, and referred the dispute to the Labour Court
alleging pregnancy-based discrimination and breach of
section 26 of the BCEA Bowman’s Law+9Saflii+9Stuvia+9.
2. Issues in Dispute
The case presented two central issues:
1. Whether the employer complied with section 26 of the
Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Code of Good
Practice by assessing and adjusting Ms Moleme’s working
conditions before removing her from duties.
2. If non-compliance occurred, whether that conduct
constituted unfair discrimination on the prohibited ground
of pregnancy under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity
Act, and if so, whether the employer could justify it as
rational and fair Course Hero+3Bowman’s Law+3Saflii+3.
3. The Court’s Decision
