Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025)

Moleme v Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd (D581/2023) [2025] ZALCD 18 (7 May 2025)

The respondent failed to conduct a proper risk assessment or obtain expert advice regarding the applicant's continued employment in the laboratory, as required by the Code of Good Practice. Without establishing that her removal was necessary, the respondent's decision to place the applicant on extended unpaid maternity leave was not rational, fair, or justifiable. The respondent did not prove that it was impracticable to offer suitable alternative employment, nor did it demonstrate genuine efforts to accommodate the applicant. Consequently, the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant on the ground of pregnancy, in violation of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act....

Citation
[2025] ZALCD 18
Parties
Applicant: Tiisetso Kefilwe Daisy Moleme; Respondent: Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
D581/2023
Procedural Posture
Discrimination Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The applicant succeeded in her claim of unfair discrimination. The respondent is ordered to pay compensation and costs.
Judges
Allen-Yaman
Legal Topics
Pregnancy Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Code of Good Practice, Compensation for Unfair Discrimination
Labour Law Pregnancy Discrimination Employment Equity Act Basic Conditions of Employment Act Code of Good Practice Compensation for Unfair Discrimination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tiisetso Kefilwe Daisy Moleme

Applicant

Induradec Coatings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Discrimination Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant on the ground of pregnancy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with section 26 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act in placing the applicant on extended unpaid maternity leave.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to conduct a proper risk assessment or obtain expert advice regarding the applicant's continued employment in the laboratory, as required by the Code of Good Practice. Without establishing that her removal was necessary, the respondent's decision to place the applicant on extended unpaid maternity leave was not rational, fair, or justifiable. The respondent did not prove that it was impracticable to offer suitable alternative employment, nor did it demonstrate genuine efforts to accommodate the applicant. Consequently, the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant on the ground of pregnancy, in violation of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act....

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded in her claim of unfair discrimination. The respondent is ordered to pay compensation and costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent unfairly discriminated against the applicant on the prohibited ground of pregnancy.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to eleven months of her salary, in the amount of R724,086.00.