Equality Court dismisses woman’s bid over department’s handling of sexual harassment complaint

The complaint was directed against her manager at the time, whom she accused of making sexual remarks and advances. A woman’s bid to hold the Gauteng Department of Education accountable for its handling of a sexual harassment complaint against her former manager has been unsuccessful, with the Equality Court ruling that the dispute must be dealt with through the labour-law system. Evelyn Kedibone Mokobane turned to the court after raising concerns about how the department dealt with allegations of sexual harassment she reported in October 2022. Gauteng education accused of mishandling sexual harassment complaint The complaint was directed against her manager at the time, whom she accused of making sexual remarks and advances towards her despite knowing that his behaviour was unwanted. Mokobane maintained that the provincial department’s handling of the matter was unfair, accusing officials of bias and of failing to take appropriate steps to address her allegations. Among her concerns was the department’s decision not to place the accused manager on precautionary suspension while the allegations were being investigated. Instead, a preliminary investigation was conducted while he remained in the workplace. Mokobane argued that this created an opportunity for the manager to collude with another alleged victim. She further claimed that a witness had overheard a conversation between the two individuals and brought it to the attention of labour officials, but the report allegedly went unaddressed. The applicant argued that the department’s conduct amounted to unfair discrimination and infringed her rights. Woman wanted disciplinary proceedings restarted Mokobane approached the Equality Court seeking an order compelling the department to conduct the disciplinary process again, this time through an independent panel with expertise and knowledge in sexual harassment. She also wanted senior officials, whom she accused of acting unethically and with bias, to face consequences. Her demands extended to senior managers who allegedly failed to respond to her repeated requests for a transfer. She further sought financial compensation, claiming that the department’s actions had exposed her and her partner to “major depression”, resulting in prolonged treatment. The department challenged the litigation, maintaining that the dispute concerned an employment-related issue and should be addressed through the appropriate labour-law mechanisms. Equality Court not the appropriate forum Judge Nelisa Phiwokazi Mali noted Mokobane’s contention that her case went beyond an “ordinary labour dispute”, but found that the remedies she was seeking were matters outside the Equality Court’s purview. Mali held that the dispute was a “labour issue, not discrimination”. “The fact that labour law provides for the resolution of disputes between employee and employer does not make it any less systemic and institutional discrimination based on gender and the relative status or ranking of officials in the employ of the respondent,” the judgment reads. “The Equality Court is not empowered to grant these remedies under Pepuda, which aims to eliminate unfair discrimination and promote equality, not to supervise an employer’s internal disciplinary and managerial decisions,” Mali further wrote. CCMA or Labour Court The judge explained that the law provides alternative avenues for employees seeking to challenge employment-related decisions, including referring disputes to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). Should the dispute remain unresolved, it may proceed to the Labour Court. “The applicant’s grievance is with the adequacy and fairness of the employer’s response, which is a matter for the labour-law forum.” The court ultimately ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain Mokobane’s application and dismissed the matter.