Wentzel v Harding Trend Sales (Pty) Ltd (C73/2015) [2017] ZALCCT 41 (5 September 2017)

Wentzel v Harding Trend Sales (Pty) Ltd (C73/2015) [2017] ZALCCT 41 (5 September 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged discriminatory remark was made. The evidence presented by the respondent was consistent and supported by the conduct of the parties before and after the meetings. The applicant's version was undermined by inconsistencies and the absence of corroboration, particularly regarding her interaction with her manager after the meeting. The court concluded that there was no factual basis for a claim of unfair discrimination, as the respondent's approach was consultative and there was no evidence of prejudice or adverse action against the applicant based on gender.

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 41
Parties
Applicant: Faida Wentzel; Respondent: Harding Trend Sales (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2017
Case Number
C 73/2015
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Application / Trial
Outcome
The applicant's claim of unfair discrimination is dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Credibility Assessment
Labour Law Unfair Discrimination Gender Discrimination Burden of Proof Credibility Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faida Wentzel

Applicant

Harding Trend Sales (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was subjected to unfair discrimination based on gender.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged offensive remark "we want a man to do your job" was made by the respondent's representative.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a factual basis for a claim of discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged discriminatory remark was made. The evidence presented by the respondent was consistent and supported by the conduct of the parties before and after the meetings. The applicant's version was undermined by inconsistencies and the absence of corroboration, particularly regarding her interaction with her manager after the meeting. The court concluded that there was no factual basis for a claim of unfair discrimination, as the respondent's approach was consultative and there was no evidence of prejudice or adverse action against the applicant based on gender.

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim of unfair discrimination is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's unfair discrimination claim is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.