,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 Facts
Tiisetso Moleme commenced employment as a research and
development chemist with Induradec Coatings in
October 2021. In March 2023, upon disclosing that she was
approximately twelve weeks pregnant, she requested
reassignment from laboratory duties involving exposure to
potentially harmful substances (including Bisphenol A). Her
employer promptly moved her to an adjacent office but failed
to assign meaningful duties despite agreement she would
receive computer-based work. No formal risk assessment
under the Code of Good Practice was carried out. By
May 2023, the employer, unable to find alternative suitable
employment, placed her on extended unpaid maternity leave
, —against her wishes—which left her with no income. She
eventually resigned early 2024 citing financial hardship and
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under the
Employment Equity Act (E EA). Studocu+12Saflii+12Stuvia+12
2. Issues in Dispute
1. Did Induradec Coatings unfairly discriminate against
Moleme on the prohibited ground of pregnancy under
section 6(1) of the EEA?
2. Did the employer comply with section 26 of the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and the Code of
Good Practice—specifically the duty to assess hazard and
offer alternative work if practicable? Bowman’s
Law+4Saflii+4LinkedIn+4
3. The Court’s Decision
Judge Allen-Yaman found that:
The differentiation in treatment—removing Moleme from
her laboratory role and placing her in unpaid leave—was
based on pregnancy, thus constituting discrimination.
Induradec concede differentiation but failed to prove it
was justified or fair. Saflii+1TimesLIVE+1
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 Facts
Tiisetso Moleme commenced employment as a research and
development chemist with Induradec Coatings in
October 2021. In March 2023, upon disclosing that she was
approximately twelve weeks pregnant, she requested
reassignment from laboratory duties involving exposure to
potentially harmful substances (including Bisphenol A). Her
employer promptly moved her to an adjacent office but failed
to assign meaningful duties despite agreement she would
receive computer-based work. No formal risk assessment
under the Code of Good Practice was carried out. By
May 2023, the employer, unable to find alternative suitable
employment, placed her on extended unpaid maternity leave
, —against her wishes—which left her with no income. She
eventually resigned early 2024 citing financial hardship and
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under the
Employment Equity Act (E EA). Studocu+12Saflii+12Stuvia+12
2. Issues in Dispute
1. Did Induradec Coatings unfairly discriminate against
Moleme on the prohibited ground of pregnancy under
section 6(1) of the EEA?
2. Did the employer comply with section 26 of the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and the Code of
Good Practice—specifically the duty to assess hazard and
offer alternative work if practicable? Bowman’s
Law+4Saflii+4LinkedIn+4
3. The Court’s Decision
Judge Allen-Yaman found that:
The differentiation in treatment—removing Moleme from
her laboratory role and placing her in unpaid leave—was
based on pregnancy, thus constituting discrimination.
Induradec concede differentiation but failed to prove it
was justified or fair. Saflii+1TimesLIVE+1
